KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 506/02 JUDGMENT DATED.4.12.2007 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER P.K.Raju, Pariyara Veliyil, Karikkadu-P.O., Thaneermukkom, Cherthala. -- APPELLANT (By Adv.Sreevaraham G.Satheesh) Vs. 1. The Asst.Engineer, KSEB Electrical Section, Thaneermukkom. -- RESPONDENTS 2. The Asst.Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Muhamma. (By Adv.M.Manikantan) JUDGMENT SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHANNAIR,MEMBER The complainant in OP.187/01 on the file of the CDRF, Alappuzha has come up in this appeal claiming compensation even though an order was passed by the Forum partly allowing the prayers of the complainant. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant was a consumer of the opposite parties and that he was regularly paying the current charges for the actual consumption made by him. The opposite parties enhanced the tariff of the appellant/complainant wrongly and arbitrarily as alleged by the complainant. The electrical connection was dis-connected by the respondents while the complaint was before the forum and the complainant prayed for reconnection apart from cancellation of additional bills issued to him. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed version stating that the connection was originally registered in the name of T.K.Karunakaran with a connected load of 140 Watts. Subsequently the ownership was changed to the name of the complainant and the connected load was increased to 500 watts on 13.11.2000. On an inspection of 20.3.01, it was detected that there was an un-authorized additional load and extension to the tune of 1200 watts. The complainant was informed of such unauthorized acts and as the complainant did not disconnect the unauthorized addition, the service was dis-connected on 13.7.01. The tariff was also changed to LT VII B, which is applicable to consumers having connected load in excess of 1000 watts. A bill for Rs.1764/- and another bill for Rs.1173/- were issued to the complainant which the complainant is liable to pay. The opposite parties contended that before disconnection notice was issued to the complainant as contemplated under law. The complainant was examined as PW1 and documents P1 to P5 were marked. The second opposite party was examined as RW1 and documents B1 to B11 were marked. Based on the evidence, the forum below partly allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to restore the supply immediately and for regularizing the connected load on proper application. It is aggrieved by the said order that the present appeal has been filed. We heard the counsel for the appellant and respondent. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 2. Whether there is any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order? POINTS 1 & 2 It is admitted by both the parties that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and that there was disconnection on 13.7.01. The complainant alleges that there was no proper notice and hence the disconnection was legally not sustainable and the order of the forum below in directing the opposite party to restore the supply is only legal and sustainable. The counsel for the appellant/complainant vehemently argued before us that when the forum has found deficiency in service for disconnecting the supply illegally the forum ought to have awarded compensation and cost. The forum has relied on B9 notice. It is addressed to consumer No.3812. The complainant has no case that his consumer number is not 3812 or notice has not at all been issued to him. The contents of the notice is incorporated which states as follows:- On a perusal of the above said contents, it is clear that a notice under section 24 giving 7 days time as stipulated in the act has been issued by the opposite party and the complainant has received such a notice. It is seen that no action has been taken by the complainant consequent to the receipt of the above notice. In our opinion the forum’s finding that the dis-connection of the supply of 13.7.01 is improper and is to be restored holds no ground and that finding is to be upset by us. When there is no illegality in dis-connecting the supply consequent to the enhancement of the additional load and unauthorised extension of electrical energy supported by mahazar also which is produced as Ext.B5, the actions of the opposite party can be held legal and justifiable. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that his connected load is only 500 watts though it is pleaded that he has only 500 watts in his installation. The appellant relied on a decision of this commission reported in II (2005) CPJ 58. But the facts and circumstances of the case are different and as such no reliance can be placed on the said decision of this commission. In the present case the bills were issued consequent to the detection of additional connected loads and unauthorized extensions. Notice also is seen to have issued though name of the complainant is not specifically written. The notice is issued to the complainant himself and he has accepted the notice even though the name and address is not filled in. So in such a circumstance the awarding of compensation and cost do not arise and the decision rendered by this commission cannot be made applicable in the present case. The counsel for the appellant urged before us that consequent to disconnection of electrical energy the appellant sustained huge loss under the heads, business loss generator charges etc. apart from mental agony and hardships. We do not find any grounds to support the case of the appellant as the disconnection was found to be legal and sustainable. Another ground raised by the counsel for the respondent is that the complainant’s prayer with regard to change of tariff is not maintainable before the forum. The change of tariff is to be agitated before other appropriate courts and the Consumer forum has no jurisdiction to entertain such a complaint and as such the complaint ought to have been dismissed on that ground also. We find force in the submission for the respondents counsel. It is a settled position that change of tariff will not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and as such the complaint was liable to be dismissed on the grounds urged by the respondents/opposite parties counsel regarding the change of tariff. It is to be noted that the respondents/opposite parties have not challenged the correctness of the order passed by the lower forum with respect to the direction given for restoration of electricity connection to Con.No.3812 immediately. In the result, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs. SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER | 
