By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:
The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is a textile dealer having electricity connections in consumer No.1128 and consumer No.245. The consumer No.1128 is domestic connection in IA tariff whereas the consumer No.245 is a commercial connection. The Anti Power Theft Squad made a surprise inspection and has given provisional invoice. The consumer No.1128 is given provisional invoice of Rs.75,231/- and consumer No.245 of Rs.9,032/-. The circumstances for imposing an additional charge alleged by the Opposite Party is that in the car parking area of the residence in consumer No.1128, textile materials were dumped and in consumer No.245 the connected load is higher than sanctioned load. The Complainant preferred an appeal before deputy chief engineer after depositing 50% of the bill amount, the appeal was later dismissed. The Complainant prayed for an order.
To declare the provisional invoice dated 22.9.2007 issued in consumer No. 1128 for Rs.75,231/- and the invoice demanding Rs. 9,032/- in consumer No.245 are not legally and liable to be paid.
Direct the Opposite Parties to refund the amount paid with interest at the rate of 12% along with cost and compensation.
2. The Opposite Party filed version on their appearance. The contentions of the Opposite Party in brief is as follows. The consumer No. 1128 is connection given to the Complainant for domestic purpose whereas the consumer No.245 is an another connection given for commercial purpose under LT VII B tariff. The premises of the Complainant was inspected by the Anti Power theft Squad and the energy supplied was found to be misused for other purposes in the tariff. The connected load of commercial connection was having more than 1000 W. In consumer No.1128 the car porch was using for business purpose dumping clothing materials. The Complainant was given short assessment bills of Rs.9,032/- and Rs.75,231/- for consumer Nos. 1128 and 245 respectively. The inspection and issuance of the bills were based on the irregularities noted. The car porch in consumer No.1128 was used for storing textiles materials. The complaint is not based on reasons and it is to be dismissed. 3. The points in consideration are: Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party? Relief and cost.
4. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit, Ext. A1 to A12 are the documents marked for the Complainant. The Opposite party filed proof affidavit swearing the contentions, Ext.B1 is the document marked for the Opposite Party. The report of the Advocate Commission is marked as Ext. C1, both the Complainant and Opposite Party tendered oral evidence in this case. The case of the Complainant is that the consumer No.1128 is the electricity connection given to the respondents of the Complainant and the consumer No.245 is a commercial connection. On inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad alleged unauthorised use of energy found out and the complainant was given provisional invoice bill. The consumer No.1128 is given the bill of Rs.75,231/- which is the amount charged deducting the amount paid towards the IA tariff that is Rs.19,501/-. The consumer No.245 is given a provisional invoice of Rs.9,032/- deducting the paid amount. The power of attorney holder of the Complainant is examined as PW1. The Opposite Party is examined as OPW1 in this case. The Advocate Commissioner inspected the premises and a report filed that is Ext.C1, the Commissioner has stated in the report that the connected load of consumer No.245 cannot be ascertained for which assistance of an expert is required. The consumer No.1128 is a house where the Complainant is residing and the car porch is a portion of the house. On examination of the power of attorney holder of the Complainant it is admitted that the car porch is used for the clothing materials and the textiles are sold to the customers from the car porch. The dumping of textile in the car porch was for disposing it to other traders. At the same time it is seen that the entire premises is not used for commercial purposes. The commission report also amplifies that the consumer No.1128 is dwelling place of the Complainant, the equipments and other furniture are also noted in the commission report. From these it is to be considered that the Complainant is also using the premises as his residence. The electricity connection in consumer No.1128 cannot be considered as an unauthorised use for commercial purpose alone. In consumer No.245 the actual connected load is not brought in to evidence. The contentions of the complainant that the assessment of the connected load is incorrect if it so, it has to be supported by evidence which is not seen in this case no expert opinion is brought out apart from swearing testimony of the Opposite Party that the connected load is 1440 W. We are in the opinion that the consumer No.245 is having connected load which can be categorized in the tariff of VII A. The consumer No. 1128 is residence of the Complainant this is also admitted by the Opposite Party. On examination we are in the opinion that the amount charged by the Opposite Party in consumer No.1128 is exorbitant sum and the point No.1 is found accordingly.
5. Point No.2:- The Complainant deposited the entire amount in consumer No.1128 and consumer No.245. Rs.78,691/- is deposited is consumer No.245. The amount paid in bill No.1128 is Rs.9,447/-. The building in consumer No.1128 is the residence of the Complainant. The entire structure is not used for commercial purpose and the Opposite Party has no case that the supply of electricity to the Complainant is not absolutely used for commercial purpose. A portion of the residence, the car porch is in use for conducting business, whereas it is reiterated in Ext.C1 report that in consumer No.1128 the Complainant and his family are living. The Complainant remitted Rs.78,691/- towards the electricity charge as demanded by the Opposite Party for the misuse of tariff. We are in the opinion that the fixed charge and current charge reassessed two times for the period of last one year as detailed in Ext.A1. The fixed charge and the current charges reassessed two times for a period of one year by the Opposite Party which is recorded as Rs.56,179/-. The reassessment is reduced for a period 6 months. The provisional invoice date 22.9.2007 is cut short to its half, ie the Opposite Party has to adjust Rs.28,090/- remitted by the Complainant to the future bills.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The Opposite Party is directed to adjust Rs.28,090/-(Rupees Twenty Eight thousand and Ninety only) already remitted by the Complainant towards the future bills. No order as to cost.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30th June 2009.
PRESIDENT: Sd/-
MEMBER-I : Sd/-
MEMBER-II: Sd/-
A P P E N D I X
Witnesses for the Complainant:
PW1. Mohandas Working in Sindhur Shop.
Witnesses for the Opposite Party:
OPW1. Sathia Kumar Asst. Engineer, K.S.E.B, APTS, Kalpetta.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Provisional Invoice No. 010417. dt:22.9.2007. A2. Copy of Site Mahazer. dt:15.9.2007. A3. Provisional Invoice No.010411. dt:22.9.2007 A4. Copy of Site Mahazer. dt:15.9.2007. A5. Copy of Letter. dt:06.10.2007. A6. Letter. dt:13.10.2007. A7. Copy of Letter. dt:19.10.2007. A8. Copy of Letter. dt:22.2.2008. A9. Copy of the Site Plan. A10. Copy of the Proceedings of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Kalpetta. dt:17.01.2008. A11. Power of Attorney. A12. Copy of Stock Transfer Challan. dt:28.07.2007 C1. Commission Report. dt:20.12.2008. Exhibits for the Opposite Party:
B1. Work Memo. dt:15.12.2008.
......................K GHEEVARGHESE
......................P Raveendran
......................SAJI MATHEW | | 
