SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.

            Complaint seeking restoration tariff change, compensation costs etc.

          The averments in the complainant can be briefly summarized as follows:

          The complainant is conducting Maruthamon Fashion Stores at Mukkada, Kundara.  The complainant is also carrying on business in Photostat and STD booth.  He is depending  in the income derived from the  above business.   There are 3 electric connections in the building  Consumer No.11030 is under tariff LT VII A and Consumer Nos.11031and 13804 are under tariff LT VII B.    The complainant  is paying electricity charges regularly.  On 24.7.2003 there was a flickering in the power supply connection to the telephone booth preventing the smooth functioning of the telephone booth.  It was  reported to the Electrical Major Section, Kundara who assured that it will be  repaired soon.  There after the employee of the complainant  without any dishonest intention took supply from the other meter.    On the same day at bout 5.30 p.m.  Anti Power Theft Squad inspected in the complainant’s  premises and the meters.  At the time of inspection the complainant informed them that the matter was  promptly informed to major section.  However, ignoring the real facts  they prepared a mahazar  alleging  that the complaint has done some mischief.   They have also managed to get the signature of the complainant in the mahazar.  On the basis of the report of APTS the reading  of three meters were clubbed together and assessed it under LT VII A tariff.  The electricity  charge was also assessed for the past 12 months at Rs.26347/-.  The complainant had already paid Rs.17817/- for the last 12 months which was  deducted from the above sum and  he was  directed to  pay Rs.14530/-.    This order was passed by the 3^rd opp.party on 6.8.2003.  The complainant on 7.8.2003 filed a complaint before the Mini9ster for electricity which was forwarded to the APTS   and was treated as an appeal.  The appeal was heard by the 2^nd opp.party on  30.5.2008 who dismissed the appeal.  The complainant paid Rs.6,000/-  toward penalty and paying the revised charges for the last 5 years under VII A tariff due to the clubbing of  connections.   The complainant  though has paid penalty for his mistake, the opp.parties are charging the complainant under VII A tariff without  giving separate bills..  The joint billing is against the interest of the complainant since the reading goes above the slab and each excess unit is charged accordingly.   The act of the opp.party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

          The opp.party  though has  entered appearance did not file version..

The points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

2.     Reliefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1 is examined.  Exts. P1 to P3 are marked.

For the opp.party DW.1 and 2 are examined.   Ext. P1 is marked.

POINTS:

          There is no dispute  that PW.1 has  3 meters one under  LT VIIA tariff and  two others under VII B tariff.  Anti Power Theft Squad  visited the premises of complainant on 24.7.2003 and prepared Ext. D1 mahazar is also  not disputed.  It is also not disputed that extension of supply from one metering equipment to another was noticed.   According to the complainant this was done as there was some flickering in the power supply to the telephone booth which obstructed the working of the booth and so he after reporting to opp.party 3 and as permitted by them drew electricity from another meter.  But the definite contention of the opp.party is that it was unauthorized  extension.

          As   a matter of fact the Asst. Engineer of opp.party 3 at the time of incident was not examined.   DW.1 who is an  Asst. Executive Engineer has stated that during the relevant period he was not opp.party 3 and that he has not direct knowledge about the incident.  He has further stated that he has no knowledge about the complaint of he complainant or whether permission was granted for change over.  It is also pertinent to note that the previous consumption by  these electric meters are also not verified to ascertain whether there is any bonafides in the statement of the complainant that the change over was  for the day alone with the consent of opp.party 3.  The previous reading of these meters would have established whether this was a regular process or not.  Those readings are not produced before the Forum which raises doubt.

          After noticing misuse of electric supply  the opp.parties have imposed penalty by clubbing the reading of all the 3 meters as a single meter and reassessment for last one year was made and bill issued accordingly deducting the amount already paid by the complainant which comes to Rs.14,530/- as per Ext. P1 series including charges.  The complainant as a precondition for admissions of appeal remitted R3633/- also.  However the appeal was dismissed evidenced by Ext.P4.

          The grievance of the complainant is that after imposing a penalty of Rs.6000/- for unauthorized extension  and reassessment of the bills for one year clubbing together all the 3 meters the opp.parties are even now collecting electric charges clubbing the3 connections.   Even in Ext.P4  there is no direction to continue clubbing .  Even assuming that the clubbing of connection for reassessment is proper the continuance of clubbing thereafter cannot be justified.  No order for tariff change from VII B to VII A is also produced.   For misuse the opp.parties have imposed penalty but continuing clubbing of the 3 connections together indefinitely is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  Point found accordingly.

          In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opp.parties to restore VII B tariff to consumer Nos.11031 and13804 and issue bills separately for each meter.   The opp.parties are further directed to calculate electric charge in respect of the 3 connections separately as per existing tariff rates prior to 24.7.03 and adjust the outstanding amount if any out of the penalty imposed and excess amount if any in future bills.

          The opp.parties are further directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.2500/- towards compensation and costs.  The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of this order.

          Dated this the  25^th       day of January, 2010.

                                                                                    .

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Sasidharan Nair

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Bill dt. 6.8.2003 with charge

P2. – Bill with receipts

P3. – Notice with receipt

P4. – Proceedings

List of  witnesses for the opp.parties

DW.1. – Philip George

DW.2. – Ramachandran Pillai

List of documents for the opp.party

D1. – Mahazar.