This revision petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.3.2013,  passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram  (hereinafter referred as ‘State Commission’) in Appeal No.599/2012,  Vimal Jyothi Charitable Society vs. Assistant Engineer, KSEB and others, vide which, while  allowing the said appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kalpetta in CC No.142/2011, filed by the present respondent,  dismissing  the said complaint, was set aside.

2.      The complainant/respondent Vimal Jyothi Charitable Society is a charitable trust running a hostel for working women for which they had obtained an electric connection from the opposite party (OP) Kerala State Electricity Board. it has been stated in the consumer complaint filed by them that they were  regularly paying their electricity bills from the OP under  VI B  Tariff Plan, vide  Consumer No.1107. However, all of a sudden,  they received an additional demand of Rs.1,76,145/- from the OP, saying that the tariff was to be charged from them under  LT VII A plan, and the said sum was to be remitted before  26.8.2011. The complainant protested that the change of tariff plan from VIB to VIIA by the OP was against reasons and justice. The complainant filed the consumer complaint, seeking directions to the OP to cancel the bill of Rs.1,76,415/- and to award them compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the hardship suffered and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation.

3.      In their  reply filed before the District Forum, the OP KSEB admitted that Consumer No.1107 had been allotted to the complainant for a working women hostel and the connection had been given under LT VIB Tariff Plan. However, the office of Accounting General (Audit) of Kerala conducted audit in their office and pointed out the mistake for application of tariff, saying that the hostels run by charitable societies etc. are to be covered under LT VIIA,  unless such societies were exempted from paying income-tax. The OP-2,  asked the complainant to submit documents,  showing exemption from paying income tax, but on their failure to do so, they applied the tariff LT VIIA and hence, there was no deficiency on their part.

4.      The District Forum after taking into account the averments of the parties, passed an order on 26.4.2012, dismissing the consumer complaint,  saying that the OP had taken action in accordance with the audit report of the Accountant General (Audit) issued to them. Being aggrieved against the said order, the complainant challenged  the same by way of appeal before the State Commission  which was allowed, vide impugned order dated 11.3.2013 and it was held by the State Commission that the complainant was eligible to be considered under LT VIB tariff,  as no income tax was being paid by them, although the income generated for the assessment year 2011-2012 was Rs.14,57,291/-. It is against this order,  that the present revision petition has been filed by the OP Electricity Board.

5.      At the time of hearing before me, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that a charitable society for availing of the tariff plan LT VIB should have  been registered  under the relevant act and should also have an exemption certificate form the income tax department . In the present case, the complainant had failed to produce the exemption certificate from the income tax department and hence, the action of the OP in applying plan VII A was in order. In reply, the learned counsel for the complainant/respondent stated that income tax returns were being regularly filed by them and no income tax had been charged from them. The order passed by the State Commission was therefore, in accordance with law and should be upheld.

6.      I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

7.      The main point for consideration in the matter is, whether the complainant/respondent society is liable to pay the electric tariff to the petitioner under tariff plan LT VIB or under tariff plan  LT VII A. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a Charitable Society, registered as a trust,  and they are running a hostel for working women. The electric connection was given to them by the petitioners under  the LT VIB tariff plan. The contention of the complainant that they had been regularly filing the income-tax returns and showing their income in those returns, but still the income-tax was not being charged from them,   has not been denied by the petitioner. The State Commission had, therefore, rightly concluded that the complainant was exempted from payment of income tax. The objection raised in the Audit Report is based on the assertion that mere registration certificate was not enough to conclude that it was a charitable society; an exemption certificate from the income-tax department should also have been produced.  However,  this aspect could have been easily confirmed by the petitioners by making a reference to the income-tax department. The petitioners are a wing of the State Government and responsible for all matters,  relating to the generation, transmission and distribution of electricity in the whole State. It appears that they have not made any such attempt to find out the correct position from the income-tax department, rather they have mechanically depended upon the objection raised by the Audit party and decided to change the tariff plan, without even giving any notice to the complainant as alleged by them. This kind of approach on the part of petitioners is clearly unfair,  as they have wide and multifarious responsibilities towards the welfare of public, being an organ of the State. In any case, I do not find any reason to disagree with the findings of the State Commission, where they concluded that as per the assessment details given by the complainant, no income-tax had to be paid by them. They were therefore, required to be covered under the tariff plan LT VIB only.

8.      Based on the discussion above, it is held that there is no merit in this revision petition, as there is no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the State Commission. This revision petition is therefore, without any force and the same is ordered to be dismissed with no orders as to cost.