<br /> <br /> <br /> By ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> This complaint stands filed to get the bill No.E4810000526 dated 20.12.2005 for Rs.37504/- quashed and for other purposes.<br /> <br /> The complainant with Consumer No.4581004117 1 has been paying bills under LT 1 [a] home tariff. While so a bill dated 20.12.2005 for Rs.37504/- stands issued stating “Lake Resorts hence tariff changed to LT VII A and back charged for the last three spot bills”. The bill is a surprise as he did not function ‘Resort’. The premises are purely a residential one. Hence the change of tariff from LT I [a] to LT VII A and then by the bill for Rs.37504/- are quite illegal actions of the opp.parties. The issue of such a bill is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the complainant approached the Forum for relief.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The opp.parties contended that the change of tariff by the Board cannot be made a matter of adjudication by the forum.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The spot biller of the area reported the misuse of energy by the consumer using it for commercial purpose. The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, Kundara, inspected the complainant’s premises on 17.12.2005 and confirmed the report of the spot biller. Some rooms of building of the residential house were used for accommodating tourists. Major part of the home began to be used for commercial purpose ie. for making profits. Hence misused the domestic tariff to commercial. On the basis of the inspection and mahazar prepared on the site the LT I [a] tariff stands charged to LT VII A commercial and issued an additional bill for Rs.37504/-. The change of tariff as well as billing accordingly are as per law. There is no deficiency in service at all.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The complainant was examined as PW.1 and marked documents such as Ext.P1 to P5. On the opp.party side DW.1 was examined and Exts. D1 was marked.<br /> <br /> <br /> [i] Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.<br /> <br /> [ii] Reliefs, if any.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Points [I] & [ii]<br /> <br /> <br /> The case of the complainant is that his connection No.4117 has been a residential one. While so the issue of a bill dated 20.12.205 for Rs.37504/-ating “Lake Resorts” hence tariff changed LT d back charged for the last three spot bills”. This is thoroughly deficiency in service. He does not function Lake Resort at all though he does possess the “Homestay Scheme” licence issued by the department of Tourism in its vide letter No.C3-8957/90 dated 1.11.2000 Ext.P2 with this approval such a house can only be included in the domestic tariff and not the LT VII A Tariff. And hence the Ext.P1 bill for Rs.37504/- is quite illegal. It is liable to be quashed.<br /> <br /> The opp.parties contended that the complainant misused the Residential tariff I [a] in to commercial purposes as per the report of the spot biller. The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, Kundara visited the site and prepared the site Mahazar, Ext.D1. Hence the new billing for Rs.37504/- dated 20.12.2005 is strictly legal.<br /> <br /> The only matter to be decoded in this is that whether the complainant is entitled to be billed for “Lake Resort” – Commercial Tariff by the opp.parties. In the trial DW.1 in cross examination admitted that he found not even the symptoms of ‘Lake Resort’ except a building for staying the complainant and Family. And 5 rooms for staying guests<br /> Ext.D1 Mahazar are not signed by the complainant. As per the tourism licence Ext.P2 the complainant is entitled to enjoy the residential tariff. Without functioning “Lake Resort” – home tariff in to commercial to LT VII A is with ulterior motive and therefore illegal. And hence the issue of the Ext.P1 bill for Rs.37504/- is thoroughly illegal and an instance of deficiency in service by the opp.parties. The unauthorized and illegal change of Tariff by the Board officials is strongly resisted and liable to be set aside. To change a home tariff LT I [a] to LT VII A on the basis of hearsay and inferences is quite illegal. Such a monopoly of the opp.parties is resisted and defeated. On an analysis of all the evidences on record we come to the conclusion that the change of tariff to LT VII A and the issue of the Ext.P1 bill for Rs.37504/- are unsustainable. It is liable to be quashed. The complainant is entitled to continue in the home tariff LT I {a] itself.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> The change of Tariff and hence the exorbitant billing are deliberately with a view to harass the complainant is the conclusion of the forum. There is deficiency and negligence on the part of the opp.parties. The complainant is entitled to relief. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is allowed quashing the Ext.P1 bill for Rs.37504/- and canceling the change of tariff to LT VII A. The opp.parties are directed to restore the tariff of the complainant to LT I [a]. The opp.parties are further directed to pay Rs.1000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost to the complainant. The amount of compensation and cost Rs.2000/- can be recovered from the monthly salary of the delinquent/erring official or officials. The order is to be complied within one month from the date of order.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Dated this the 31st day of January, 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K. VIJAYAKUMARAN ACHARY: <br /> <br /> <br /> ADV. RAVI SUSHA : <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> I n d e x<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant<br /> PW.1.- Edward<br /> <br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. Approved for HomeStay Scheme<br /> P2. – Bill dated 20.12.2005<br /> P2 [a] . – Bill dated 3.1.2006.<br /> P3 - Low Tension – VII [LT-VII] Commercial<br /> P4. – Circular<br /> P5. -Circular<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.parties<br /> DW.1. – Vijayan<br /> <br /> List of of documents for the opp.parties<br /> D1. – Mahazar.<br />