BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 19/06/2010

Date of Order : 29/10/2011

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 351/2010

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant has been conducting a small scale industry unit for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The Industries Department of Government of Kerala had given authorisation to conduct the unit. An expeller, filter and packing machine are installed in the premises for production and sale of coconut oil. The complainant was allotted the electricity connection under the LT IV (Industrial) Tariff. The average monthly consumption is around 750 units. While so, the APTS unit of the 1^st opposite party conducted an inspection in the complainant's premises on 19-05-2010. After the inspection, the 2^nd opposite party issued a penal bill dated 21-05-2010 for Rs. 2,23,455/- alleging that no construction purpose is going on in the unit and the connection is used for packing unit. The penal bill is prepared by converting the 10906 units consumption in the LT VII A Tariff instead of the LT IV category and retrospectively charged for previous eleven months. Subsequently, the tariff was changed to LT VII A category. The allegation made by the opposite parties that the unit is not an industrial unit is flimsy. It is the usual practice to produce coconut oil during the peak season for coconut production and store the same for the off season. The production was stopped from March 2010 due to the restriction imposed by the opposite parties by fixing quota for supplying electricity and also due to the non-availability of copra in the market. So the expeller was not functioning at the time of inspection conducted by the APTS team, the conversion of tariff from LT IV category to LT VII category merely on the ground of non-functioning of expeller at the time of inspection is unjustifiable and amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has used the electricity for industrial purpose only as per the guidelines given for conducting an industry unit by the State Industries Department. Though an application was filed before the 2^nd opposite party for reconsideration of the disputed bill, he rejected the application. Thus , the complainant is before us seeking an order to set aside the demand made in the penal bill dated 21-05-2010 for Rs. 2,23,455/- and also to restore the LT IV category tariff.

2. Version filed by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties :

The Industries Department of Government of Kerala had given sanction to the complainant to conduct the manufacturing process of coconut oil. On inspection conducted with the assistance of ATPS Wing, Kottayam on 19-05-2010, it was found that no manufacturing process was being done for the last one year. The complainant was utilizing the unit for packing purpose of coconut oil in large scale. The complainant was having another oil mill at Thrikkalathoor in the name Aiswarya Oil Mills. The oil from the said mill was stored in a tank in the premises of Anand Oil Mill (consumer no. 65-45) where the inspection was conducted. The product thus packed is being sold in the brand name A-ONE Supreme Agmark Coconut Oil. Packing does not come under the purview of the term manufacture. Moreover, on inspection two large tanks having 10,000 litres capacity containing coconut oil in full were found. So for the unauthorised use of electricity, the consumer was penalized as per Section 126 of Electricity Act for the past one year under the changed tariff. The complainant is liable to pay the penal bill of Rs. 2,23,455/- and also liable to pay electricity charges under changed tariff under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on his side. The witness for the opposite parties was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4. The points that arose for consideration are :-

1. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the impugned bill?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the electric connection changed to LT IV tariff from LT VII tariff?

5. Point No. i. :- According to the complainant, the connection was granted under LT IV category that is one for industrial purpose for the functioning of expeller. It is contended that packing of coconut oil is a part and parcel of the manufacturing process and the conversion of tariff as well the issuance of penal bill are unsustainable. The opposite parties maintain that this connection has been granted only for manufacturing process and not for packing. It was argued that coconut oil being collected by the complainant and packed at the premises by using electricity granted under individual tariff. According to the opposite party, they are entitled to recover electricity charges as per the bill in question.

6. During the proceedings in this Forum vide order dated 22-06-2010 in I.A. No. 356/2010, this Forum restrained the opposite parties for disconnecting the electric supply until further orders.

7. The bone of contention of the parties is whether the 'manufacturing process' includes packing. Admittedly, manufacturing process is neither defined in Consumer Protection Act nor in Electricity Act 2003. Though however, it has to be sustained that such a situation in law has to be sustained. Another option is to rely on the definition of 'manufacturing process' in Section 2 (k) of the Factories Act 1948, which is as follows :

“2 (k) “manufacturing process” means any process for -

(i) making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing or otherwise treating or adapting any article or substance with a view to its use sale, transport, delivery or disposal, or

(ii) pumping oil, water, sewage or any other substance; or

(iii) generating, transforming or transmitting power; or

(iv) composing types for printing, printing by letter press, lithography, photogravure or other similar process or book binding; or

(v) constructing reconstructing, repairing, refitting, finishing or breaking up ships or vessels; or

(vi) preserving or storing any article in cold storage.”

8. From the definition of manufacturing process, it is crystal clear that the process of packing inter-alia includes manufacturing process. By no imaginable situation can it be considered that how a manufactured product cannot be packed or marketed that alone is what is being done and that is what is contested against which where a consumer is wronged the rule of law would be called to question. So, the complainant is not liable to pay the amounts as per the impugned bill and he is also entitled to continue with the electric connection under LT VII tariff.

9. In the result, the complaint is allowed and direct as follows :

1. The order in I.A. No. 356/2010 dated 22-06-2010 is made absolute.

2. The impugned bill is set aside for reasons stated above.

3. The complainant is at liberty to continue with the tariff under LT VII.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of October 2011.

Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========