By Sri. Chandran Alachery, Member:

The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the Opposite parties not to collect the bill dated 20.04.2012 for Rs.23,117/- and directing the Opposite parties not to disconnect the electricity supply of consumer No.28108 and the cost of the proceedings.

2. Complaint in brief:- The Complainant is a consumer of Electrical section, Kalpetta bearing consumer No.28108. This consumer number is allotted to the premises used by ING Vysya Insurance. The connection was originally given under LT VII A tariff for the commercial purpose. Actually the connection has to be made in LT VI(C) as the ING Vysya Insurance is carrying out an insurance business. On 17.04.2008, the 2^nd Opposite Party made a surprise checking and have found that the existing tariff was in LT VII A and the same ought to have made in LT VI(C) Tariff. The Tariff has changed to LT VI(C) on 17.04.2008 itself and directed the Complainant to regularize the connected load. As per the above said direction the Complainant has presented a new test report and an additional CD for the tariff change and paid an amount of Rs.3,500/- towards, the same on 19.06.2008 bearing receipt No.185. From 19.06.2008 LT VI © Tariff came in to existence and ING Vysya Insurance used to pay the bill regularly.

3. While so ING Vysya Insuracne ceased functioning. At the time of closure the same has been intimated to the Board and asked them for the bill till that date. As per bill dated 08.07.2011 and amount of Rs.1/- was balancing and the same was remitted on 19.07.2011. Thus no amount was balancing. Thereafter a bill was issued by the Opposite parties to remit an amount of Rs.57,686/- on 19.11.2011. On the above said bill it was marked that short of assessment of FC, CC and duty from 6/08 to 10/2010 for unauthorized additional load detected by sections squad on 21.04.2008 and the misuse of tariff LT VII A to LC VI(C). The above mentioned bill was issued as per the report of the Regional Audit Office. On receiving the said bill, the Complainant had submitted a representation before the 2^nd Opposite party and thus the Opposite parties had revised the bill and made a reply. Along with the bill a revised bill has been issued dated 07.12.11 which amounts Rs.38,608/-. Only on the bill dated 07.12.2011 the tariff has been changed from VII A to VI C in the bill it was marked that short assessment bill from 06/08 to 10/2011 in LT VIC Tariff instead of LT VII A Tariff against which the Complainant hadfiled on appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Kalpetta. As per the order of the Deputy Chief Engineer dated 10.04.2012 the officials are liable for amounts of the portions of the bill pertaining to the period from 06/08 to 07.12.2009. And further ordered that, the consumer is liable to pay the amount pertaining to the period from 08.12.09 to 10.11. As per the said order a bill dated 20.04.2012 was issued by the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.23,117/- to the Complainant. So also in the said bill it was marked that revised invoice as per order No.GB/petition/Con No.28108/KPTA/2011-12/37 dated 10.04.2012 of Dy CE, Electric Circle, Kalpetta. In the said bill itself the disconnection date is cited as 10.05.2012. There is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of Opposite parties. Aggrieved by this the complaint is filed.

4. On receipt of complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Parties and Opposite Parties appeared before the Forum and filed version. In the version, the Opposite parties stated that consumer No.28108 was issued in the name of Complainant under LT VIIA Tariff with connected load of 1KW. On 17.04.2008, the Opposite party made an inspection in the premises and found unauthorised additional load of 4 KW and the connection was found used for the purpose of LT VI C tariff. Hence the Complainant was directed to regularise the same. Accordingly, the consumer paid ACD during 6/08, but due to oversight, the office omitted to charge the tariff from VII A to VIC and hence the consumer continued under VIIA tariff itself. The consumer also failed to point out the mistake and at last the Regional audit team found the mistake. The bill issued is only a short assessment bill and not a penal bill without levying any interest. On representation it was reduced and again the Complainant approached the Deputy Chief Engineer against the revised bill and again an order passed stating that the consumer is at liable to pay the amount beyond the period of 2 years. The remaining amount was found Rs.23,117/- and the consumer was directed to pay the same.  The amount covered by the bill is only the difference between the electricity charges LT VIIA tariff and LT VI C tariff together with duty. No other amount is claimed from the consumer. There is no deficiency of service from the part of Opposite Parties.

5. On perusal of complaint, version and documents the Forum raised the following points for considerations.

1. Whether there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice from the part of

Opposite parties?

2. Relief and cost.

6. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit and is examined as PW1 and documents are marked as Exts.A1 to A12. The Opposite Party also filed proof affidavit and is examined as OPW1. Ext.A8 is the first bill and Ext.A11 is the revised bill. On going through the evidence and documents, it is seen that the Complainant had paid Rs.3,500/- as CD tariff charge on 19.06.2008 as per new test report. The Complainant was under the impression that the new LT VIC tariff was came in to existence from 19.06.2008 onwards. The ING Vysya Bank was possessing the building at that time and they were paying the bill regularly. While ING Vysya Bank was ceased functioning, the Complainant along with ING Vysya Bank asked the Opposite Parties to intimate the exact bill if any pending over the connection. At that time, the Opposite Parties on 08.07.2011 intimated the Complainant and Vysya Bank that the pending amount is only Rs.1/-. That is remitted by the bank. So by analysing all these, it is found that the Complainant was very much vigilant regarding his part of duty. Here the fault is committed by the Opposite parties by not changing the tariff in time. The ING Vysya bank was possessing the building during this period and electricity consumption is made by them. The ING Vysya Bank had ceased functioning in the building and they left. If Opposite Parties had done their part well in time, the VIC tariff change would have been paid by the Vysya Bank themselves. After ceasing functioning the Complainant cannot realise any amount from them at all. There may be heavy loss sustained to the Opposite parties. But the loss sustained to the Opposite Parties are due to their fault only for which the Complainant cannot be held liable. So the Forum is of the view that there will be no justification in directing the Complainant to remit the Ext.A11 bill amount to the Opposite Parties. The Forum found that there is deficiency of service from the part of Opposite parties. Point No.1 is found accordingly.

7. Point No.2:- Since the point No.1 is found in favour of Complainant, the Complainant is entitled to get cost of the proceedings.

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the Opposite Parties are directed to cancell the Ext.A11 bill issued by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant. The Opposite parties are also directed not to disconnect the electricity connection of Complainant as per consumer No.28108 and to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only as cost of the proceedings to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 24^th day of August 2015.

Date of Filing:11.05.2012.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

/True Copy/

PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainant:

PW1. Ashraff. K.V Electrical Wireman

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Sivadasan. Asst. Executive Engineer, K.S.E.B, Kalpetta.

Exhibits for the complainant

A1. Notice.

A2. Copy of Interim Receipt. dt:19.06.2015.

A3. Electricity Bill. dt:08.07.2011.

A4. Receipt. dt:19.07.2011.

A5. Electricity Bill. dt:19.11.2011.

A6. Copy of Letter. dt:09.12.2011.

A7. Letter. dt:12.01.2012.

A8. Electricity Bill. dt:07.12.2011.

A9. Copy of Letter.

A10. Proceedings of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Kalpetta dt:10.04.2012.

A11. Electricity Bill. dt:20.04.2012.

A12. Copy of Special Power of Attorney. dt:07.05.2012.

Exhibits for the opposite Parties.

Nil.