By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:

The Complaint filed U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The gist of the case is as follows:- Consumer No. 7984 electric connection situates at the “Sreekovil Chit funds Pvt., Ltd”, conducted by the Complainant and he is duely paying the bills for the energy used by him. Till 2008 February the bills were below Rs.400 and fixed charge was shown Rs.60/-. But on 3.04.2008 the Opposite Parties issued a bill for Rs.1,873/-. As per that bill, the Opposite Parties have raised the fixed charges to Rs.340/- and minimum charge as Rs.459/-. An amount at Rs.1,016/- also was shown as arrears in the above said bill. The Complainant has paid this bill even though he has objection about the bill. In the above said bill, the tariff was shown as VI C instead of VII B in the earlier bills. The Opposite Parties have not explained or given notice about the tariff change to the Complainant on 31.07.2008. The Opposite Parties have issued a bill for Rs.8,019/- for misusing the tariff and as arrears for the misuse. Again on 4.08.2008 the Opposite Parties issued a demand notice for Rs.8,803/- in which arrears were shown as 8,019/-. The bill has not shown the period during which the arrears accrued or the monthly arrears. The Opposite Parties are trying to charge undue amount from the Complainant. This is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. So, the Complainant prays for an order forbidding the Opposite Parties from charging the disputed bills dated 31.07.2008 and 4.08.2008 and directing the Opposite Parties to issue bills under tariff VII B. The Complainant also prays for an order directing the Opposite Parties to return the amount paid by the Complainant as per the bill dated 3.04.2008 and forbidding the Opposite Parties from disconnecting the energy.

2. The Opposite Parties filed version and stated that the Complainant is not a consumer as far as connection No.7984 is concerned. This connection is issued to one N.K. Abdul Nazar, Neelikandy building, Kalpetta. This connection was registered under LT VII B on 11.06.1997. Based on the remarks made in the abnormality register kept in the office of the Electrical Section, Kalpetta by the meter reader, the Assistant Engineer has conducted an inspection at the premises of consumer on 3.10.97 and found that the connections is used by a firm namely “ Sreekovil Chit Funds” which is a financial enterprise. As per the tariff structure made by the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission LT VI C should have been levied to consumer No.7984 instead of VIIB. Hence, the consumer has misused the tariff. As per subsection (5) of section 126 of Electricity (Amendment)Act 2007, assessment shall be made for the entire period during which such unauthorised use of electricity has taken place. If the period during which unauthorised use of electricity cannot be ascertained, such period shall be limited to a period of 12 months immediately preceeding the date of inspection. And as per sub-section (6), the assessment shall be made at the rate equal to 2 times the tariff applicable for the relevant category of service specified in sub section (5). Hence a bill for Rs.8,019/- was issued to the consumer as per rules. The Complainant has not paid that bill. In the bimonthly bill issued on 4.08.2008 this amount of Rs.8,019/- was shown as arrears. Subsection (3) of section 126 of Electricity (Amendment) Act 2007 provides for raising objection against the provisional assessment before the Assessing Officer. The Complainant has not resorted to this provision and approached this forum.

3. The fixed charge per kilowatt as per VII B tariff is only Rs.60/-. But as per LTVIC tariff, the fixed charge per kilowatt is Rs.170/-. The connected load of consumer No. 7984 is 1 kilowatt. It was found that the tariff was misused by the consumer of Consumer No. 7984 and the connection was charged under VI C tariff from 01/2008 onwards. But the spot bill 2/2008 was issued to the consumer under VII B tariff by mistake. The Opposite Parties have acted only as per rules and they prays for an order dismissing the complaint.

4. Here the matters to be decided are.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief

5. Point No.1. The complainant has agreed that his firm is conducting finance business. The Opposite Parties have produced the Gazette notification regarding the tariff structure and that is marked as Ext.B3. As per Ext.B3 financial institution does not come under VIIB tariff pawn brokers are charged under VIC. The matter whether Chit business can be described as banking or pawn brokerage was considered. In the strict sense chit business is not banking, but they are also doing finance business. However the complainant cannot be charged under VIIB tariff. The Complainant is more suitably can be headed under VI C. The Complainant has not informed the Opposite Parties about the functioning of Chit funds. Hence the Point No.1 is decided against the Complainant.

6. Point No.2. As there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled for any relief.

Hence the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 30^th day of May 2009

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER I : Sd/-

MEMBER II : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant :

PW1. Santhosh. Complainant

Witnesses for the Opposite Party :

OPW1. Brown. K.S Assistant Engineer, KSEB

Exhibits for the Complainant :

A1. Bill dt. 03.04.2008

A2. Provisional bill dt. 31.07.2008

A3. Demand and Disconnecting notice dt. 4.08.2008

Exhibits for the Opposite Party :

B1. True copy of abnormality register

B2. True copy of site mahazar

B3.(2 pages) Gazette notification