KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. DOMINIC JOSEPH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners herein were opposite parties order before the District Forum and the respondents were the complainants. According to the complainants they were having electricity connection in their house with consumer number 3770 of Electrical Major Section, Ponkunnam. The connection is a domestic connection. The complainants are doing business at Ernakulam and they used to reside in the said house occasionally. The Estate Supervisor, however, is residing in the house. The charges of electricity were being paid regularly. On 27.09.2001, KSEB officials visited the house. They prepared a Mahazar and obtained the signature of the complainant no. 2 and the Estate Supervisor, namely, K. J. Thomas. According to the complainants, the contents of the Mahazar were not disclosed to them. But later on the complainants came to know that the Mahazar was prepared with an allegation that the house was being used as a guest house. On 28.09.2001, the OPs changed the electric meter without complying formalities. On 4.10.2001, the OPs issued invoice dated 3.10.2001, demanding Rs.1,22,679/-. The complainants sent a representation to the OPs in this regard to the effect that they were not bound to pay the said amount. They came to know that the OPs have issued the bill calculating higher tariff rate for commercial establishments on the assumption that the house is being used as a guest house. They also came to know that the assessment was made on the assumption that two of the three phases of the meter were not working. In view of these two aspects, the OPs had issued bill in question for the previous six months. Treating this action on the part of the OPs as illegal and arbitrary, the complainants preferred an appeal before the Dy. Chief Engineer, APTS. But no action had been taken. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainants filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum with a request to direct the OPs not to disconnect the electricity supply to the complainant s premises and to declare the bill for Rs.1,22,679/- as illegal and also for payment of compensation and cost.

(2.) On being noticed, the OPs resisted the complaint by filing written reply. It was submitted by the OPs that the complainants had filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the same was pending for disposal. However, the complainants had wilfully concealed this fact from the District Forum and as such the complainant was pre-mature and was liable to be dismissed. They also submitted that the bill in question had been raised based on the assessment in the light of the surprise inspection carried out by the inspection team of the OPs in which it was found that the building was being used as a guest house and the electricity energy supplied to the complainants under domestic tariff was seen as being used for commercial purposes.

(3.) On appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced before it, the District Forum held that since the appeal before the appellate authority had been withdrawn by the complainants, the complaint before the District Forum was maintainable. The District Forum further held that the other allegation based on which the bill in question had been issued to the complainants were not tenable, the District Forum quashed and set aside the bill issued by the OPs amounting to Rs.1,22,679/- and hence the complainants were not liable to pay the said amount. Since the OPs stated that they had not disconnected the electric connection, no compensation was awarded by the District Forum because no loss or injury was proved. However, the District Forum directed the OPs to pay cost of Rs.750/- which was to be adjusted in the future bill to be issued to the complainants or could be paid directly. The District Forum in its detailed order dated 15.04.2005 has recorded the following reasons in support of its order:-