SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER.

            This a is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection  Act.   The complaint is filed for getting an order quashing bill No.598460 dated 20.11.2009 for Rs.1,49,502/- and for restraining the opp.parties from imposing charge under LT VI B.  The complainant further prays for cost and other reliefs.

          The complainant’s case is that the opp.parties illegally and  improperly imposed an excessive  LTVI  tariff rate for the consumption of energy in his education institution namely UBDACE for which the complainant is liable to pay electric charges only under LT VII A.   The Service connection originally obtained by the complainant  was for conducting   SSI unit on 8.3.98.  That single phase connection was converted to 3 phase  with effect from 19.12.2001.  Subsequently the connected load was  increased and an application for regularization was submitted on 23.8.05.   The opp.parties had not regularized the connected load.   The complainant was remitted energy charges without any delay under category LT VI A leviable to Private Education Institutions.

          Without any notice or hearing the opp.parties changed the  tariff from VI A to VI B.   The complainant was forced to remit energy charges under VI B.   The complainant protested against the act of opp.parties and the opp.party agreed to consider the matter.  But instead of changing the tariff to LT.VI A the 2^nd opp.party issued demand notice dated 20.11.2009 claiming an amount of Rs.1,49,502/-.   The Demand notice does not contain any details as regarding the  modeby which they have arrived the amount.   The wrong imposition of excessive rate is deficiency in service from the part of opp.parties.  Hence the complaint

          The opp.party’s case is that the demand  cum disconnection notice issued by the opp.parties to the complainant is correct  one and the calculation is also correct and as per prevailing rules and orders.  It is issued to rectify the  wrong application of tariff rate, based on the report of Audit team from Accountant General’s office, Thiruvananthapuram as they have found some  anomalies and discrepancies in connection with the current charges demanded against the Consumer No.14675-O.   The tariff of Private Educational Institution will not come under the category LT VI A.  It is denied that the complainant had filed an application dated 23.8.2005 requesting regularization of connected load.   The bill does not  contains any penalty or surcharges.  Penalty in the notice is only for the unauthorized additional load of consumer which should have been assessed and levied earlier.  The details of the  bill and method arriving the amount were already communicated to the Consumer.   The complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

          The complainant filed affidavit.  PW.1 examined.   Exts. P1 to P3 marked from the side of opp.parties.   DW.1 examined.   Ext. D1 marked.

The points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is any deficiency in servie on the part of opp.party.

2.     Compensation and cost.

Points 1 and 2

          Admittedly the complainant is a consumer of opp.parties holding Consumer No.14675-O.  It is also admitted that the tariff was LT VIA  before the disputed bill date.  The increase in connected load also admitted.

          The case of the complainant is that he had filed an application on 23.8.2005 for regularization of connected load after he had  increased the connected load.  But the opp.parties had not taken steps for regularizing connected load in spite of repeated requests.   The case of opp.party is that such an application for regularization was not submitted before opp.parties by the complainant Ext.P1 is the document produced by the complainant to prove the submission of application for regularization.  We have perused the document in detail.  It is true that Ext.P1 is a photocopy of model application for  electric connection and it is duly filled in .  We are of the opinion that it cannot  be accepted as an authenticated document.   There is no signature of any officials or seal of the office  denotiing the receipt of application.  No receipt was also  produced to show that the complainant had submitted such an application before the opp.parties. .   The Consumer No recorded in the application as Consumer PT 5145.   Hence the complainant  in our view failed to prove the authenticity of Ext.P1.

          The complainant is claiming that he had submitted the application on 23.8.05.  The alleged bill date is 20.11.2009.  It reveals that the Consumer was using electricity in the increased connected load without regularizing the connected load, for a period of more than 4 years.   Even though the complainant is claiming that he had made repeated requests, no evidence is produced  to establish this contention..  The complainant also is bound to take steps for regularization of connected load.   The complainant had right to use electrical energy supplied by the opp.parties, only after getting sanction from the opp.parties after verification, test report and payment of the prescribed fee.  The  use of electricity in the increased connected load is                                                                                                                                                             unauthorized  and it is clear from these facts.

          The learned counsel for the complainant argued that without any reason and without any notice, the opp.party changed the tariff to LT VI B  The complainant was forced to remit the charges under category LT VI B.

          The counsel for opp.party argued that the tariff change was implemented on the basis of the Report of an Audit team from Accountant General’s office during  their visit in the office of Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, Cantonment who detected some abnormalities in the current charge demanded against the complainant.   The consumer was billed under tariff LT VI A  instead of Tariff LT VI B due to inadvertence..   The tariff applicable to  Private educational institutions is under. LT VI B.  On detecting the mistake the tariff was changed to LT VI B.

          The opp.parties had admitted in the version itself that the calculation of electric charges in LT VI A tariff in the  complainant’s electric connection  is wrong.  While cross examination , DW.1 had admitted that LT VI A  tariff is intended for educational institutions and not intended for private institutions.  It is an error and was detected only at the time of inspection of Squad from  Accountant General’s office.  The opp.parties produced Ext. D1 as the document of inspection report of the Squad  came from Accountant General’s office.

          The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the D1 is not prepared by the opp.parties and DW.1 is not the competent person to prove D1 as he was not in charge of the office at that period.  Moreover that there is no signature or seal in Ext. D1.

          On perusal of Ext. D1 document we found that D1 is not the report prepared by the Squad of Accountant General’s office.  There is no signature   or date mentioned therein.  It is only an addendum to the AG’s report.   The original report was not produced.  The produced documents contained the calculations in separate heads.

          As admitted by the opp.parties wrong application of tariff was detected only on 2009 during the inspection of squad from the AG’s office. The opp.parties are only responsible for the wrong calculation of tariff rate.   We are of the opinion that there is negligence and deficiency in the service from the part of opp.parties in the wrong application of tariff and the opp.parties are liable to compensate for mental agony and financial difficulties sustained by the complainant without any laches from his part.

          It is to be noted here that no penalty imposed upon the complainant in the disputed demand notice.  Penalisation is only for the unauthorized increase of connected load without permission  of opp.parties for which  is just and proper.

          According  to  the  Order No.TR 23 of 2006 and TP N0 of 2007 dated26.11.2007 schedule of Tarriff and Terms and conditions for Retail Supply by Kerala State Electricity Board  with effect from 1.12.2007 of Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission, the tariff for computer training Institutes  is LT VI B.  Hence it is clear that the LT VIA tariff applied to the complainant was a wrong application and the opp.parties are bound to change the tariff to LT VI B when it was detected.   Even though there is no latches from the part of the complainant, he is liable to pay the charges under LT VI B tariff,  the correct tariff, and other charges payable as per Provisions which were contained in Ext. D1

          For all that has been discussed above, we are of the view that there is negligence  and deficiency in service from the part of opp.parties in the wrong application of LT VI A tariff for the complainant’s Electric connection bearing No.14675 which resulted in the issuance of in the disputed demand  notice for a huge amount by which the complainant sustained mental agony and financial difficulties.   The points found accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.   The opp.parties are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and cost Rs.1500/- to the complainant which will be adjusted in the disputed bill amount  and to allow the complainant to remit the balance amount in  not less than 3 monthly instalments.     The 1^st  opp.party  will realize  the compensation and cost from the concerned persons who were responsible for the wrong application of LT VI A tariff for the Electric Connection of Consumer No.14675-O, if they think so.

The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the order.

Dated this the    13^th    day of October, 2010.

.

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – R.V. Suresh Kumar.

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Application dated 23.8.05

P2. – Original billa

P3. – Original Bills

List of documents for the opp.parties

DW.1. Sunil Kumar

List of documents for the opp.parties

D1. – Audit Enquiry Report