By Sri. P. Raveendran, Member:

The Complainant is the owner of Anand Engineering works at Ambalavayal. The Complainant is the Consumer bearing No.766 under the Opposite Party. Before 1998 the Complainant used 5 HP Motor and 3 HP Motors to run the Engineering works and service station. But after 1998 the complainant stopped the service station so he has not used 3 HP Motor hence his consumption is reduced. So he filed an application before Opposite Party to reduce his slab system. But the Opposite Party has not acted upon the application. So again he filed another complaint on 30.05.2000 along with the Panchayath licence which shows that the Complainant is using 5 HP Motor. Without considering the above complaint the Opposite Parties issued three bills containing Rs. 1,91,521/-, 2,041/-, 1,289/-. The Complainant remitted the above amount suffering much difficulties. Thereafter the Complainant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam vide W.P(C) No.29189/2003 in which the Hon'ble High Court disposed the petition in favour of the Complainant. But the Opposite Party has not acted upon the order. So the Complainant filed a complaint before this Forum. It was taken into file as O.P. 14/2003 in which the forum ordered the Opposite Party to refix the slab within one month. Against this order the Opposite party filed an appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission vide appeal No.A-141/2009 and the same was dismissed on 09.09.2009. Thereafter till date the Opposite Party has not changed the slab. Opposite Party has not issued the regular bill also. But on 23.02.2010 the Opposite Party has issued a bill demanding to remit an amount of Rs. 1,24,904/- within 15 days. But the details is not mentioned in the bill. It is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have not issued the bills from time to time as per the consumption of the Complainant. Hence they are not entitled to collect interest or penal interest in the amount arrived. The Complainant and his family is living with the money received from the Engineering works. Hence it is prayed that the Forum may be directed to the Opposite Party.

1. To fix the arrears from 9/2002 under LT IV slab.

2. To avoid interest and penal interest

3. Not to disconnect the electric connection of the Complainant.

4. Not to start revenue recovery proceedings.

5. To grand instalments to remit the amount

6. To allow cost and compensation etc. to the Complainant.

2. Opposite Parties appeared and filed their version. In the version they admitted that Connection No.766 was issued in the name of Complainant for running a firm under the name and style 'Anand Service Station and Engineering Works'. The appeal against the order in C.C. No.90/2006 was dismissed since the delay in filing the appeal was not condoned. After the communication of the said order the Opposite Party issued bill in dispute here. The Opposite Parties cannot be blamed for accrual of interests on the bills issued to him. Since the Complainant failed to remit the electricity charges in time, he is bound to pay interest for the same also according to the Electricity Act. The Complainant is a habitual litigant to the Opposite Party. The order was to revise the same on the basis of the connected load of the premises. In the light of the said order the Opposite Party reclassified the tariff of the Complainant from LT VII to LT IV with effect from 01.03.2008. The Adjustment bill amounting to Rs. 2,07,363/- was also issued to him which is the electricity charges and interest as per the rules. The interest is calculated at the rate of 24% from August 2002 to October 2008 and 18% from November 2008 to February 2010. The bill amount was Rs. 2,22,075/- out of which the electricity charges paid by the Complainant amounting to Rs.14,712/- from May 2000 to November 2002 under LT. VII A tariff was deducted from the same. Later it was noticed that there occurred an error in complying the order of this Forum. There is difference of Rs. 82,459/-. So the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.2,07,363/-. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the above complaint with cost of the respondent.

3. Considering the complaint and version the following points are to be considered.

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Relief and cost.

4. Point No.1:- To prove Complainant's case he has produced Ext.A1 to A12 documents. Ext.A1 is the notice dated 23.02.2010 issued by Opposite Party to the Complainant. In the notice it is directed to remit an amount of Rs.1,24,904/- from 9/02 to 2/2010. In the above amount Rs.62,138/- is the penal interest. Ext.A3 is the copy of the Complaint submitted by the Complainant to the Deputy Chief Engineer to avoid penal interest shown in Ext.A1. Ext.A4 is the copy of the order of this Forum in CC No.90/2006 in which the Forum directed the Opposite Party to fix the tariff after estimating of the connected load. Ext.A5 is the copy of order of Hon'ble Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in I.A 329/2009 in Appeal 141/09 with judgment dated 9.9.2009. ExtA6 is the copy of judgment dated 16.9.2003 of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in WP(C) No.29189 of 2003. Ext.A7 is the Copy of complaint filed in O.P. 14/02 before this Forum. Ext.A8 series are the current charges bills issued to the Complainant. Ext.A9 is the copy of complaint dated 30.05.2000 filed by the Complainant before Assistant Executive Engineer, Sulthan Bathery in which he requested to re-fix his tariff. Ext.A10 is the licence issued to the complainant by Grama Panchayath on 19.08.94. Ext.A11 is the licence issued by Grama Panchayath to the Complainant on 30.05.2000. Ext.A12 is the notice dated 10.06.2010 issued by the Opposite party to the Complainant in which it is stated that the Complainant has to pay Rs.2,07,363/-. But in the bill dated 23.02.2010 it is stated to pay Rs.1,24,904/-. So he has to pay an additional amount of Rs.82,459/-.

5. To prove Opposite parties case Opposite party has produced his chief affidavit. He was also produced Exts.B1 to B5. Ext.B1 and B2 are the decisions of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. Ext.B3 is the copy of petition dated 26.06.2006 submitted by the Complainant to Opposite Party No.4. Ext.B4 is the copy of electric current charge bill of Consumer No.766 from 28.07.2008 to 23.03.2010. Ext.B5 is the copy of site mahazar dated 27.06.2006.

6. On perusing the documents produced by both parties. It is revealed from Ext.A11 that the Complainant is using 5 H.P Motor for running Engineering work shop. Ext.A9 prove that the Complainant has filed a complaint before Opposite Party No.3 for changing his tariff. Ext.A6 shows that Hon'ble High Court has directed Opposite Party No.3 to dispose of the same after giving notice and opportunity to the Complainant within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. No documents is produced before us to show that the Opposite Party No.3 has complied the order of Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter the Complainant approached this Forum. In C.C No.20/2006 this Forum directed Opposite Parties to fix the tariff in the estimate of the connected load within one month from the date of the order. The order pronounced on 26.02.2008. No documents is produced before us to show that the Opposite parties were complied the order of this Forum in the above case within time. On perusing Ext.A1, A12 series it is clear that the calculation made by Opposite Party is not correct. So the Complainant is having right to know the correct calculation for the arrears. On going through Ext.B4 series it is clear that the meter was struck during most of the bill period. When the meter was working the consumption was less than calculated by Opposite Parties. We consider that Ext.B5 is prepared only to over come the judgment passed by Hon'ble High Court of Kerala (Ext.A6) because the Opposite Parties are giving connection only after verification of wiring done by Complainant. At the time of cross examination Opposite Party admitted that no obstruction to change the tariff under K.S.E.B test in public lighting tariff order 2001. It changed only in 2007. But it was not seen done by Opposite Party in proper manner within time. That is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

7. Point No.2:- It is seen from the version the Opposite Party reclassified the tariff of the Complainant from L.T. VII to LT.IV with effect from 01.03.2008. We cannot understand how the Opposite Party taken 01.03.2008 as cut of date. Since the Complainant already submitted application to Opposite party No.3 on 30.5.2000 (Ext.A9). Hon'ble High Court directed the Opposite Party to dispose of Ext.A8 on 16.9.2003 within one month. Hence we consider that the change of tariff from VII to IV is to be from 01.10.2003. Regarding interest collection the Opposite Party has produced Ext.B1, and Ext.B2. On going through the above decisions it is clear that the facts and circumstances of the above cases and this case is entirely different. Hence the above decisions are not applicable in this case. In this case proper bill is not issued to the Complainant by Opposite Party till date in spite of repeated directions. So the Complainant is not liable to pay the interest or penal interest to the amount. Hence the Complainant is entitled to change his tariff from VII to IV from 01.10.2003 onwards. The Opposite Parties has to calculate the amount under tariff IV from 01.10.2003 to 01.03.2008 also. As per the order I.A. 85/2010 on 09.04.2010 he was directed to deposit Rs. 47,766/- with Opposite Party. Deduct that amount from the bill. The balance amount has to be deposited in three monthly instalments.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party is directed to fix the tariff of the Complainant under VII from 9/2002 to 30/09/2003 and fix tariff under tariff IV from 01.10.2003 to till date. Calculate the amount under above mentioned tariff without interest at the existing rate at the relevant time. Deduct the amount of Rs. 47,766/- deposited by Complainant as per order in I.A No.85/2010 and other amount if any deposited by the Complainant during the above period towards current charges. The total balance amount is to pay in three monthly instalments. Opposite Party is directed to divide the total balance amount in three monthly instalments and pay bill for the above amount. Opposite Party is directed to give detailed bill. The Complainant is directed to pay the bill amount within 15 days of receipt of the bills. No order as to cost and compensation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th September 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witness for the Complainant:

Nil.

Witness for the Opposite Party:

OPW1. Dwipin Das. D Asst. Engineer, KSEB.

Exhibit for the Complainant:

A1. Notice. dt:23.02.2010.

A2. Letter. dt:23.02.2010.

A3. Copy of Letter issued by Complainant.

A4. Copy of Order . dt:26.02.2008.

A5. Copy of Order. dt:09.09.2009.

A6. Copy of Judgment. dt:16.09.2003.

A7. Copy of complaint. dt:10.01.2003.

A8 series (6 numbers). Bill.

A9. Coy of Letter. dt:30.05.2000.

A10. Licence dt:19.08.1994.

A11. Licence. dt:30.05.2000 .

A12. Notice. dt:10.06.2010.

Exhibit for the Opposite Party:

B1. Copy of Judgment. dt:26.03.2007.

B2. Copy of Judgment. dt:29.03.2010.

B3. Copy of Letter. dt:26.06.2006.

B4 series (11 numbers) Bill.

B5. Copy of Site Inspection Report. dt:27.06.2006.