By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:-

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is beneficiary of the consumer No. 15279 in the supply of electricity by the Opposite Party. The connection has been in use from 29.8.1997 onwards. The tariff of the above connection was for the use of electricity for irrigation. How ever the energy was not consumed in the above connection and the meter charge was paying without consuming electricity. The Opposite Party issued the Complainant a bill demanding the amount for the energy which was not consumed. The Opposite Party issued the Complainant a bill of Rs. 6,336/- dated 03.11.2009 and it was also informed to the Complainant that in case of any failure on the part of the Complainant to remit the amount, revenue recovery proceedings had initiated to recover the amount. The Complainant was demanded an amount which was not based on the consumption of electricity. The supply of electricity to the Complainant was captioned under minimum guaranty and the period of minimum guaranty was also over.

2. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to quash the bill demanding Rs. 6,336/- and a direction may be given not to recover the amount under revenue recovery. The Complainant is also to be compensated with Rs.10,000/- towards the mental agony and other hardships.

3. The Opposite Party filed version in short it is as follows:- The Complainant is not a consumer having any locus standi to file this complaint. The consumer No.15279 was given to the Mr. P.K. Kumaran, Pallipurath House under agricultural tariff LT5 and which was in minimum guaranty agreement between the Complainant and Opposite Parties. On surprise inspection it was found that the electricity Connection in the agricultural tariff was used for other purposes and tariff was changed to LT 7A in the light of inspection. Even after change of tariff from LT5 to LT 7A the bills were issued mistakenly in the tariff LT5 and the same mistake was detected and short assessment bill was issued to the consumer. The consumer is bound to pay the bill amount issued under LT 7A. On the non payment of the bill amount, the connection was discontinued and dismantling notice dated 03/11/2009 was issued to the consumer subsequently the connection was dismantled on 01.12.2009. The Revenue Recovery notice to the consumer dated 04.12.2009 was issued since the consumer failed to pay the bill amount as demanded. The Complainant filed suppressed all the above material facts. The complaint itself is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed.

4. The points in consideration are:-

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

2. Relief and cost.

5. Points No.1 and 2:- The Complainant and Opposite Parties filed proof affidavit,

Exts.A1 to A4 and Exts.B1 to B3 are the documents taken into consideration. The Complainant and the 1^st Opposite Party have also given oral testimony in this case. The case of the Complainant is that the electricity connection in consumer No. 15279 was in LT 5 tariff the amount demanded in the way of bill of Rs.6,336/- plus interest is towards the energy which was not consumed by the Complainant. On verification of the records it is seen that though the supply of electricity to the Complainant was in LT 5 tariff initially, it was later changed to LT 7A. Ext.B2 also shows that mistakenly the subsequent bills issued to the Complainant was under the category of LT5 tariff instead of LT 7A. The Opposite Party rectified the mistake and the bill of Rs.6,336/- was issued as a result of short assessment including plus interest. On examination of the Complainant it is also admitted that the connection of the consumer is LT-7A . It is also seen from the testimony of the Complainant that all the bills that were issued to the Complainant are not produced. The Complainant has no case that is entitled for the payment of electricity charges under LT 5 tariff. We are in the opinion that the amount demanded from the complainant is a short assessment as a rectification of the bills in the concerned tariff. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

In the result the complaint is dismissed, no order as to cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th June 2010.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

MEMBER : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Sivaprakash Complainant.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:

OPW1. Ismail. P.A Assistant Executive Engineer.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1. Dismantling Notice. dt:03.11.2009.

A2 series (4 in numbers) Demand and Disconnection Notice.

A3. Premises Meter Card.

A4. Proceedings of the the Deputy Chief Engineer,

Electrical Circle, Kalpetta. dt:04.10.2008.

Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:

B1. Copy of Site Mahazar. dt:14.05.2008.

B2. Copy of Letter. dt:23.04.2009.

B3. Copy of Notice. dt:04.12.2009.