F I N A L   O R D E R

The complainant filed this case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer directing the O.P. to pay the entire excess bill amount from January, 2005 to January 2013 after perfect calculation, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain agony and harassment and to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant was/ is the bonafide consumer of the O.P. having a domestic electric connection in his premises more than 30 years, vide Consumer ID No.- 432065405. Since inception of electric connection till date the electric meter connection has been used as domestic consumption but surprisingly the O.P. arbitrarily change the category of electric consumption unit, since January, 2005 to January, 2013 from domestic category to commercial category unit consumption. To avoid disconnection of the electric connection the complainant was compelled to pay the electric bill for that period as commercial unit consumption under protest. The complainant raised complain verbally as well in written to the O.P. for rectification of change the category of the unit of electric consumption from commercial to domestic but the O.P. did not pay heed. The complainant finding no alternative appears before this Forum.

The O.P. has appeared by filing W.V. denying the allegations of the complainant, stating inter alia that since January, 2005 the complainant was used laundry business by using electric connection from his domestic meter connection as such the O.P. has changed the category of unit consumption and raised bills, this O.P. has no deficiency in service and prays for dismiss the complaint.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

To prove his case, the complainant submitted memo of evidence adduced oral evidence, photocopies of electric bill, letters to the O.P., legal notice, etc. The O.P. also submitted W.V. and adduced oral evidence etc. to prove its case.

We carefully perused the petition of complaint, photocopies of documents, W.V., adduced evidences and considered the written argument and argument advanced by the parties.

On perusal of the complaint petition and on scrutiny of the photocopies of electric bills it reveals that the complainant was/ is the bonafide consumer of the O.P. as domestic electric unit consumption since inception of installation of electric connection in the premises of the complainant. The complainant was/ is paying the electric bills regularly as domestic electric consumption unit. Suddenly from January, 2005 to January, 2013 arbitrarily the O.P. raised bills of the said electric meter as commercial meter unit consumption converted instead of domestic meter unit consumption. The complainant raised objection verbally, subsequently in written objection submitted to the O.P. for changing the category of electric meter unit consumption from commercial unit consumption to domestic unit consumption and also adjust the excess paid amount as commercial unit consumption for the period from January 2005 to January, 2013. During that period to avoid disconnection of electric connection, the complainant was compelled to pay the excess amount electric bill as commercial unit consumption. Lastly the complainant had send the protest letter through Advocate to the O.P. with the request to convert the category of electric unit consumption from commercial to domestic and to adjust the paid excess amount on the subsequent bills but the O.P. did not pay heed. The O.P. has stated in its W.V. that as the complainant was used said domestic electric connection in his laundry business as such the O.P. was raised bills as commercial unit consumption.

From the copy of electric bills for the period 2003, 2004, it reveals that the category was mentioned as domestic consumer, but in the electric bill raised by the O.P. for the period of bill 24.01.2005 to 25.04.2005 where it mentioned in the column Tariff/ Category - A(CM-U) i.e. commercial consumption. The O.P. had raised bills as commercial unit consumption up to 2012 as per bills submitted by the complainant but surprisingly it appears from the copy of bill for the period of 06.08.2013 to 13.11.2013 that Category/ Tariff Class mentioned - A(DM-U) i.e. domestic unit consumption.

In the oral evidence the complainant clearly stated in the cross-examination of O.P. that “since inception of electric connection we are enjoying the electric meter consumption as domestic but the O.P. without any reason from the period January, 2005 to 03.10.2013 bills were raised as commercial unit consumption and I raised protect on various occasions to the O.P.” and the evidence of the complainant is corroborating by the documents i.e. copy of electric bills submitted by the complainant. But the O.P. in his evidence did not establish their allegation that the complainant was running Laundry business by using electric or he had at all runs any business, rather the O.P. has fail to prove his case by also not producing neither any documentary evidence like as trade license nor able to producing witness from the neighbors of the complainant.

In the written argument the O.P. raised question of limitation but in the instant case from the date of cause of action the complainant raised verbal objection, written objection and objection through legal notice up to the date on 03.10.2013 which amounts to continuing cause of action, as per law the cause of action is the bundle of facts. Secondly, the O.P. raised as per Sec. 58 of evidence Act, “facts admitted need not be proved”. In the instant case, in the evidences nowhere, the complainant admitted that he used electric connection as commercial use rather he always claimed that “since inception of installation of electric connection, I always used electric as domestic unit consumption”. On the other hand the only defence, of the case of the O.P. that the complainant was used his electric connection in his laundry business but the O.P. did not adduce any evidence or submitted any document to prove his defence and as per law as the O.P. raised its defense the burden of proof is lying upon the O.P. and the O.P. is liable to prove it but the O.P. can not shift its liability upon the complainant. In this case it is clearly established that the O.P. without any proof whimsically converted the unit consumption category of electric meter unit consumption and as such to avoid legal liability the O.P. itself again converted the category of bills from commercial to domestic unit consumption and such circumstances proved that the O.P. was gross negligence, deficient in its service and created unfair trade practice as a service provider.

On scrutiny of the documents and evidence we find that the complainant was/ is consumed electric energy in his premises since inception to till date as domestic unit consumption and the O.P. without proper enquiry and evidence whimsically converted the category/ Tariff of meter connection of unit consumption and was raised the bills for the period from 2005 to 2013 as commercial unit consumption only to harass and keeping in mental tension to the complainant which amounts to gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.P. From the case record we find that the complainant was aged about 65 years old i.e. called as Senior Citizen and for that category of citizen Govt. pronounced various facilities in each section whereas the Govt. undertaken business sector harassed such type of people without any reason for which the complainant has to suffer mental tension, monetary loss and harassment for the whimsical and illegal act by the O.P.

In view of the discussions above we are of opinion that the complainant has proved his case, on the other hand the O.P. is unable to establish its case, The complainant is entitled to get an award directing the O.P. to refund the excess paid amount which was calculated as commercial unit consumption instead of domestic unit consumption of raised bills for the period from January, 2005 to January, 2013, already paid by the complainant and such calculated amount of excess payment for that period shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. together with the total excess amount, to pay of Rs.10,000/- compensation for gross negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.P. for harassment, mental pain and agony of the complainant, to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the case being No.CC-01/2014 is allowed in part on contest against the O.P. without cost.

That the complainant do get an award directing the O.P. to refund the excess paid amount of bills as commercial unit consumption for the period from January, 2005 to January, 2013 of the electric connection of the complainant together with 9% interest p.a. from the date of payment of excess amount till realization, to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony and to pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order failing which the total calculated amount will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from this day up to the date of full realization and the complainant is at liberty to put this order in execution in accordance with law.

Copy of this order be supplied to each parties each free of cost.