O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. The case of the petitioner's is as follows: The petitioner is running a cold storage in the name and style as Vellappallil Enterprises. He is also conducting a fish farm in connection with cold storage. The income from the said business is the only a source of livelihood of the petitioner'. Cold storage,being an SSI unit, was included in the LT IV tariff.The connection was allotted to the petitioner on 6..9..2002. He was remitting current charges accordingly in the LT IV tariff. The second opposite party illegally changed the petitioner's connection to LT VII A tariff and collected electricity charges for the said tariff. The petitioner informed the opposite party that the change of tariff is illegal and he demanded reversal of tariff from LT VII A to IV. In October 2004 the second opposite party issued a notice to the -2- petitioner demanding an amount of Rs. 24,000/- as meter deposit and OYEC deposit. The petitioner informed the opposite party that he is only liable to pay Rs. 500/- as meter deposit because under LT IV tariff the meter deposit is fixed as Rs. 500/- per KW. The petitioner has not cared to pay the said amount of Rs. 24000/- as directed by the second opposite party so the connection of the petitioner was disconnected. The opposite party on 9..8..2005 issued a notice to the petitioner intimating him that the connection will be dismantled and revenue recovery proceedings will be initiated if an amount of Rs. 960/- is not paid within 15 days of receipt of notice. Due to the disconnection petitioner is forced to stop the business. According to the petitioner he sustained loss in the tune of Rs. 1 lakh. On 9..9..2005 the petitioner issued a lawyers notice to the opposite parties. The opposite party has not sent any reply or has not taken any steps to redress the grievance of the petitioner. L:ater on 13..10..2005 second opposite party dismantled the electricity connection of the petitioner. According to the petitioner the above said act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service. So, he prays for directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 1 lakh with compensation and also he demand for the refund of the excess amount collected by the opposite party from the petitioner. Petitioner also seeks direction from the Forum to issue necessary orders to restrain the opposite party from taking coercive steps for recovery of Rs. 960/-. They prayed for allowing Rs. 2000/- as cost of the proceedings. The petitioner during the trial of the petition died and Addl. 2, 3 and 4 were impleaded. -3- The opposite party entered appearance filed their version contenting that during the inspection of the petitioner's premises on 13..1..2004. It was found that temporary wires were drawn to the nearby brick making unit and pig farm. According to the opposite party the petitioner was not using the supply for the purpose for which the supply was allotted. The total connected load found during the inspection was 1250 watts. The act of the petitioner according to the opposite party is mis use of energy. So, the petitioner is liable to be billed as per clause 42 d of condition of supply. The opposite party issued notice to the petitioner asking him to submit his version but the petitioner has not filed any version. So the tariff was changed from LT IV to LT VII A. On inspection of the Regional Audit Officer, Pala. it was reported and pointed out that the service connection to the petitioner was effected on basis of SSI Registration certificate issued from the industrial department. Since the petitioner was utilising the SSI Industrial Unit connection for a commercial activity he is liable to pay OYEC charges and connection charges. So a notice was issued on 30..3..2004 to the petitioner demanding Rs. 24,000/-. Petitioner was not turned up to remit the amount. So the supply was disconnected, Since the petitioner has defaulted the payment of minimum charges as per condition of supply 34 (d) and 32 k notice demanding Rs. 960/- was sent to the petitioner on 9..8..2005. Petitioner has not remitted the said amount so the supply was dismantled. According to the opposite party from the site mahazar prepared by them it can be seen that petitioner had stopped the cold storage business and is doing some other business now. . No loss as alleged by the petitioner in his petition is caused to the -4- petitioner. The opposite party contented that the action taken is legal, correct and as per the norms and there is no deficiency in service on their part. So the petition is to be dismissed with their costs. Points for determination are: i) Whether there is dificiency in service on the part of the opposite party ii) Relief & costs. Petitioner's evidence consists of the affidavit filed by the additional 2nd complainant and Ext. A1 to A6 documents, opposite parties evidence consists of their affidavit and Ext. B1 to B5 documents. Point No. 1 According to the petitioner the opposite party has illegally changed his tariff from LT IV to LT VII A and collected charges under the said tariff.But on the other hand the opposite party contented that on 13..1..2004 the opposite party inspected the premises of the petitioner and no industrial load as cold storage was found and they found that temporary wires were drawn to the nearby brick making unit and the pig farm. Since the petitioner was not using the supply for the purpose for which the supply was alloted he should be billed as per clause 42 d of the condition of supply of electrical energy. The petitioner is remitting the spot bill, under LT VII A tariff without any objection from 1/04 to 11/04. During the inspection of Regional Audit Officer, Pala it was found that since -5- the LT VII A connection is not an SSI Unit the petitioner is liable to remit commercial OYEC charges amounting to Rs. 24000/-. The opposite party has produced a site mahazar prepared by the Sub Engineer, Kidangoor, the said Mahazar is marked as Ext. B1. From Ext. B1 it can be seen that the petitioner is using the supply for otherpurposes other than which is alloted. The additional petitioner in her affidavit has averred that Ext. B1 is a fabricated one but nothing has brought out in evidence by the petitioner to also prove Ext. B1 is a fabricated Mahazar. We are of the opinion that there is no reason for us to disbelieve the officials of the opposite party. So, the said act of the opposite party is a misuse of electrical energy and will come under section 42 (d) of the condition of supply of electrical energy. So, we are of the opinion that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2. In view of the finding in point No. 1, the petition is dismissed. No cost is ordered. Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of March, 2008.
......................Bindhu M Thomas ......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
