By ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.<br /> <br /> This complaint filed by the complaint for quashing the Electricity bill and other reliefs.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant is a consumer of the opp.parties with Consumer No.362 of Perinadu Major Electrical Section. The said electric connection is a domestic connection with an average consecution of 100-130 units for two months and the bill amounts to Rs.250/- to Rs.300/- only. But the 2nd opp.party unilaterally converted the tariff to LT VII A from domestic to commercial tariff and issued a bill for an amount of Rs.809/- dated 18.6.2005 for 127 units of energy used. But the immediate previous bill is only for Rs.225/- for 132 units of current used. The bill for Rs.225/- dated 12.5.2005 is produced The complainant’s electric connection is purely a domestic connection to his residential house. On enquiry to the 2nd opp.party by the complainant it is learned that the complainant is using electricity for the manufacturing of coir in his house. But no mechanical device is used and no current is needed for the making coir. At any stage of manufacturing coir no current is used. Hence prays for relief.<br /> <br /> Opposite parties filed a version contending, interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either under law or on facts. The electric connection with Consumer No.362 under electric Section Perinad is registered in the name of Sri. Zakheria, the present connected load is 1 KW. The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Sectionl Perinad during inspection of the premises of the complainant has noticed those the consumer is misusing electricity by using the building for commercial purpose and industrial purpose. The complainant is residing in a nearby home The tariff has been charged to LT VIIA which is applicable to commercial consumers. The 2nd opp.party issued a bill for Rs.809/-vide bill dated 11.7.05 for consuming 127 units of electricity for two months The averments in para 3 is true hence admitted. The complainant approached the 2nd opp.party and enquired about the the bill He told that the bill is based on commercial tariff as he is misusing electricity for non domestic purpose. The coir manufacturing unit is consuming water in the process of manufacture of coir and the water is being pumped is using electricity supplied to Consumer No.362. he is not using electricity for the manufacture of coir is incorrect. This bill is issued based on the usage of electricity of non domestic purpose The averments in para 5 and 6 are false and hence denied. The complainant is using electricity for non domestic purpose only He may make arrangements to make the disputed building used look like a building for domestic purpose. The bill was prepared and issued to the consumer as per existing rules. There is no deficiency in service on the part of these opp.party. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> Points that would arise for consideration are:<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties<br /> 2. Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 and P2 are marked.<br /> <br /> For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 is marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Points:<br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that the 2nd opp.party unilaterally con verted the tariff to LT VII A from domestic to commercial tariff and issued a bill for an amount of Rs.809/- for 127 units of Energy. Opp.parties contention is that the complainant is using additional energy for the manufacturing of coir in his house. The assessment of consumption of excess energy in question was made on the basis of an inspection allegedly carried out by the Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section Perinadu on 11.3.2005 where it is said that as against the sanctioned load the complainant was found using connected a pump, computer, computer prints, Fresh Air Fan, Lights [6 Nos] sealing Fan 2. But no affidavit of the person who carried out the said inspection or in whose presence the inspection was carried out could be filed in evidence. Only the Asst. Exe. Engineer of the opp.party is examined as DW.1 From his evidence it is clear that he was not present at the time of the said inspection. The Ext. D1 also does not carry his signature. The complainant has denied any of such inspection. Vides those circumstances, the burden was on the opp.party Board to establish the said unauthorized use of power. Since the respondent failed to discharge its burden, the impugned demand deserved to be quashed.<br /> <br /> We thus allow the complaint, set aside the impugned order and quashed the said demand [Ext.P2]. Also set aside the convertion of tariff from domestic to LT VIIA tariff and directing the opp.parties to collect only the domestic tariff from the complainant. The opp.parties are also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as cost to the proceedings. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 1st day of November, 2008. <br /> <br /> <br /> I N D E X<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> DW.1. - Nepolian<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. – Demand Disconnection Notice<br /> P2. – Bill dated 14.7.2005<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.1. – J. Muraleedhara Achary<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.parties<br /> D1. Mahazar<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />