O R D  E R

Sri.K.Vijayakumaran, President.

(2)

This is a complaint seeking to quash electricity bill and for compensation and costs.

The averments in the complaint is brief is as follows. The complainant is an Ayurvedic Doctor. The complainant is residing with his family in the 2^nd floor of his house and electric connection is provided there with Consumer No.7587 under I (A) tariff. One of the rooms in the residential building is rented out to one Vanitha Co-operative Society. The complainant’s electricity charges were around Rs.500/- only. While so on 17.01.06 he received an electric bill for Rs.4211/- and on enquiry he was informed that the tariff of his electric connection was changed to VI-C from I(A) alleging that he has misused electricity for business purpose. No action has been taken by the Ops on his complaints in this regard. So he remitted the bill under protest. Later on a separate electric connection under Lt VI-C tariff with Consumer No.12385 was installed in the said Vanitha Co-operative Society. On 15.03.06 the complainant received two bills of the same date under the same tariff. There upon he again filed complaints before OP3 and Deputy Chief Engineer, Kottarakkara and the Deputy Chief Engineer allowed his application and directed Ops 2 and 3 to restore I (A) tariff to the complainant’s domestic connection. In spite of that Ops 2 and 3 did not take any action. Hence the complaint.

(3)

          The Opposite parties filed a joint version contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer. The allegation that one room is rented out to the Vanitha Service Co-operative Society is not true but a large hall is rented out. While taking meter reading in the premises this aspect was noticed. Since the business of the Society is money lending for which the tariff fixed is VI C tariff. Therefore the complainant’s tariff was changed from I (A) to VI C and bills issued accordingly. No consent is required to charge tariff in such circumstances. No complaint was received seeking cancellation of electric bill for Rs.4211/-. The domestic connection was separated when the complainant applied for separate connection to the society and Consumer No.12385 was granted to the society under VI C tariff. The tariff change to domestic connection was affected in March 2006 itself. It is true that two separate bills for the same period under VI C tariff was issued. One is in respect of Consumer No.7587 and the other is in respect of Consumer No.12385. No irregularity has been committed by the Ops nor there any deficiency in service on the side of Ops. The Ops have every right to disconnect supply in the case of non-payment of electricity charges. The complainant is bound to pay all the amounts claimed by the Ops. Hence the Ops pray to dismiss the complaint.

                                                          (4)

The evidence consists of PW1.

The point for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the side of the Ops?
2. Relief and costs.

Point:-   The  case of the Ops is that the complainant who was a domestic consumer under I (A) tariff has rented out a portion of his building to a Vanitha Service Co-operative Society and thereby misused the domestic connection for commercial purpose and so I (A) tariff was changed to VI C. The fact that a Vanitha Co-operative Society was functioning in his building is not disputed by the complainant also. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has applied for separate connection for the above society and separate connection with consumer.no.12385 was provided with effect from 06.03.06 evidenced by Ext.P4.The grievance of the complainant is that even after providing separate connection to the Society bill for his domestic connection is also being issued under VI C tariff instead of I (A) tariff which is deficiency in service.

          The tariff charge from IA to VI C to the building was effected without giving notice to the consumer and the case of the OP is that they have every right to do so whenever misuse is noticed. If that be so, as

(5)

soon as separate connection is provided to the consumer  for commercial purpose the OP has a duty to restore I (A) tariff to the domestic connection. Ext.P7 and P8 shows that immediately after installation of separate connection to the Society the complainant has applied for change of tariff. Ext P8 is the request for change of tariff to Op3 on 17.03.06 and Ext P7 is the petition given to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Kottarakkara on 20.03.06. Ext P7 shows that the Deputy Chief Engineer passed Ext P7 (a) order on that application on the same day itself and communicated the same to Ops 2 and 3. But instead of complying with Ext P7 (a) order, OP3 issued Ext D5 letter raising certain objections. The conduct of OP3 in issuing Ext D5 without complying with ExtP7 (a) order itself is deficiency in service. OP3 could have complied with the order and change the domestic connection to I (A) tariff and realize the fees etc, if any in subsequent bills rather than delaying the matter and continuing to issue bills under VI C tariff for domestic connection.

          As pointed out earlier the OP3 who changed tariff of the domestic connection of the complainant from I(A) to VI C without notice ought to have restored I (A) tariff to the domestic connection of the complainant simultaneously with the installation of separate connection to the

(6)

Society without insisting any request from the consumer. Issuance of bills under VI C tariff to the domestic connection thereafter is unfair trade practice. It is worth pointing out in this context that even after Ext P7 (a) order issued by the competent authority OP3 did not effect change of tariff. Though Ops would contend that immediately after Ext P7 (a) they have changed the tariff of domestic connection Ext D5 shows that even on 24.06.06 change of tariff was not effected and such conduct is deficiency in service. Even though OP3 would contend in their version that they have changed the tariff immediately, there is no material, worth believable. We are of the view that from 06.03.06 onwards the complainant is bound to pay electricity charges to his domestic connection under I (A) tariff only.

          The complainant is challenging Ext P2 and prays that the sum remitted by him in pursuant to Ext P2 may be ordered to be refunded or adjusted in future bills. Ext P2 shows that the same was issued after preparing Ext D1 and change of tariff from I(A) to VI C. From the averments in the complaint it is not forth coming from which date the Vanitha Co-operative Service Society is functioning in that building. Ext D1 shows that it was there on 22.11.05. Though the complainant would challenge the veracity of Ext D1 in the light of his admission that it is

(7)

functioning in that building it is of no significance. Since Ext P2 bill is issued as per the revised tariff of VI C it can not be said that the complainant is entitled to get any refund as per Ext P2 as no dispute regarding meter reading is there. Similarly the contention that the complainant is entitled to use 20% extra connected load is also.            Unsustainable as the entire consumption is not by the consumer but by the consumer and the Society .For all that has been discussed above we find that there is deficiency in service on the side of Ops 2 and 3. Point found accordingly.

          In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the Ops to issue the complainant electricity bills for his domestic connection nO.7587 under I (A) tariff only from 06.03.06 onwards. Ext P5 also will be revised accordingly. The Ops are also directed to pay the complainant Rs.2500/- towards compensation and costs.

          The order shall be complied with within one month.

                                                                   (8)

Dated this the 8^th day of July 2010.

K.Vijayakumaran : Sd/-

Adv.Ravi Susha   : Sd/-

R.Vijayakumar    : Sd/-

/ / Forwarded by Order //

    Senior Superintendent

Date of Filing: 31.03.2006

Date of Order: 08.07.2010.

INDEX

List of witness for complainant

PW1                               - Dr.N.Vijayan

List of documents for complainant

P1                                  - Bill dtd: 14.07.05 & 12.05.05.

P2                                  - Bill dtd: 17.01.06.

P3                                  - Bill amount Rs.4211/-

P4                                  - Disputed bill of Rs.3516 and Rs.367/-

P5                                  - Letter to Deputy Chief Engineer, Kottarakkara.

(9)

P6                                  - Bill relating to the society dtd: 15.03.06.

P7                                  - Complaint to the Deputy Chief Engineer

P8                                  - Application for charging the tariff dtd: 17.03.06.

P9                                  - second application dtd: 19.06.2006.

List of witness for opposite party

DW1                               - Kenny Philip

DW2                              - P.Y.Philip

List of documents for opposite party

D1                                  - Site Mahasser dtd: 22.11.05

D2                                  - Copy of bill dtd: 17.01.06

D3                                  - Bills dtd: 16.05.2006 & 15.11.2006 & 11.01.2007

D4                                  - Letter dtd: 19.0.62006 by the complainant

D5                                  - Letter dtd: 24.06.2006 to the complainant

 D6                                 - Post acknowledgment

D7                                  - Letter and postal receipt