Mahabaleshwar Hoblidar,

S/o Late Venkataramana Hoblidar,

“Hoblidar House”,

Door No.98, Customs Road,

Paduary Village,

P.O.Byndoor – 576 214,

Kundapura Taluk and Udupi District.



(Sri P.R.Bhandarkar, Advocate for the Complainant)

……….. Complainant

Versus



1. M/s MESCOM Ltd.,

O & M Division,

Maruthi Veethika,

Udupi – 576 101,




2. M/s MESCOM Ltd.,

O & M Circle, Attavar,

Mangalore – 575 001



3. The Asst. Engineer,

M/s MESCOM Ltd.,

Byndoor Sub-Division,

Byndoor – 576 214.

………….. Opposite Parties



1. The Complainant fled this complaint under Sec. 12 of CPA alleging deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties in repairing the transformer in time and claimed Rs.15,000/- as compensation for the death of the animal plus compensation for mental agony /stress and untold sufferings undergone by the Complainant as a result of the lone animal being electrocuted and died on the spot and for the cost of the litigation, etc. in all Rs.27,000/-.

Contd……..2

2. The case of the Complainant is that he is a small farmer and he had lone she – buffalo which was being used for his agricultural purpose and also for consuming milk for his day to day domestic needs. The family of the Complainant is indigent and his house has been provided with the electricity under RR No.BY 1834 and he has been very prompt in making payment of the electricity energy bills from time to time. The Complainant is also having I.P. Set connection provided by the Opposite Party company under RR.No.BY 1682.



3. On 12.08.2008 between 5.00 pm and 6.00 pm the Complainant’s she – buffalo which was pregnant of 8 months came near the Transformer of the Opposite Party Company which is just 100 meters from his house and on account of the short circuit of the said transformer, the animal died as a result of electrocution. The short circuit of the electricity in the Transformer was brought to the knowledge of the Opposite Party No.3 a few days before the unfortunate death of the she – buffalo and in spite of this, the said Transformer was not set right and as a result of which the animal had untimely death. This tragic death was brought to the knowledge of Opposite Party No.3 by the Complainant on 13.08.2008 and he made his humble request to give him compensation for the loss of Rs.15,000/- incurred by him as a result of the premature death of his lone animal on which he and his family were solely depending.



4. The Complainant vide letter dated 13.08.2008 addressed to Special Tahasildar, Byndoor and also in his letter dated 13.08.2008 addressed to the Station House Officer, Byndoor Police Station, Byndoor, wherein the details as to description, circumstances of the death of the animal, the cost of the animal, etc., were fully furnished and an humble request was also made by the Complainant to pay him compensation and to render justice to him.



5. The Post-mortem of the animal was done and the necessary post mortem report was issued by the Assistant Director of the Veterinary Hospital, Kundapur.



6. Opposite Party No.2 has sanctioned a meager compensation of Rs.2,500/- to the Complainant vide their letter dated 29.11.2008 for the loss of Rs.15,000/- incurred by him as a result of the sudden death of the said animal on which the Complainant and his family were solely depending. However, the said meager compensation as committed by Opposite Party No.2 has so far not been released

Contd……….3

to the Complainant. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant got issued legal notice dated 31.12.2008 to the Opposite Parties named above through his counsel, calling upon them to make payment of Rs.15,000/- to the Complainant being the cost of the animal and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- compensation for the mental stress/agony and untold sufferings undergone by him on account of the sudden and untimely death of his lone she – buffalo. Opposite Parties have so far not replied the legal notice dated 31.12.2008 got issued by the Complainant and the reasonable inference that can be drawn for their non-responding of the said notice amounts to acquiescence of the contents of the notice in question. Hence this complaint.



7. On admission of the complaint, notices were served on the Opposite Parties. Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel. Opposite Party No.1 filed the version and Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 adopts the version of Opposite Party No.1. Opposite Party No.1 has contended that the complaint is wholly false, frivolous and the same is not sustainable either at law or on merits.



8. Opposite Party No.1 submits that the Complainant is not entitled to any relief under the Act against the Opposite Party as the provisions of the Act in relation to the claim are not applicable to them since there is no deficiency in service.



9. Opposite Party No.1 submits that the transformer belonging to Opposite Party was being maintained service rendered without any complaint at any point of time before the alleged accident.



10. Opposite Party No.1 further submits that the insulator covering of the fuses was broken, the cause being heavy rain and wind on 12.08.2008 and there was earthening of current in the G.I. Pipe. It is quite possible that the she buffalo of the Complainant while grazing must have crossed the road and strayed near the transformer and might have come in contact with electric current and died. But the Opposite Party cannot be held responsible for the accidental death caused by Act of God due to breaking of the insulator and passing of current to G.I. pipe.



11. Opposite Party No.1 further submits that it was the duty of the Complainant to have tied the she buffalo for grazing and not allowed it to graze every where. Opposite Party on humanitarian grounds and in accordance with rules has sanctioned a sum of Rs.2,500/- which the Complainant has refused to accept.

Contd……4

12. The Opposite Party has through 3rd Opposite Party suitably replied to the notice of Complainant dated 12.01.2009 on 17.01.2009, the contents of which are true facts.



13. The Opposite Party is not liable for the claims made in the complaint. The claim is wholly arbitrary. This Opposite Party put the Complainant in proof of all the facts stated in the complaint and denies the claim of the Complainant. Opposite Party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.



14. Complainant filed 14 documents in support of his claim marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-14 and MO-1 (CD) and Opposite Parties have not filed any documents. Parties filed affidavits, interrogatories and reply affidavits. We heard the parties. These are the materials placed before this Forum to decide the complaint. The issues that arise out of these for decision are :

1) Whether the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?

2) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs?

3) What Order?



Point No.1:

15. It is not in dispute that on 12.8.2008 between 5.00 pm to 6.00 pm the Complainant’s she - buffalo which was pregnant of 8 months died as a result of electrocution on account of short circuit of the transformer which is situated just 100 meters from his house. The Complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3, the electrical bills of his R.R. No.BY1682 and R.R.No.BY1834 alognwith receipt No.409 dated 18.11.2008. Ex.C-4 is the complaint filed before the Assistant Engineer, MESCOM, Byndoor requesting for reliefs. Ex.C-5 is the copy of the same complaint to the Special Tahasildar, Byndoor. Ex.C-6 is the copy of the complaint to the Station House Officer, Byndoor Police Station. Ex.C-7 is the post mortem report issued by the department of animal husbandry dated 13.8.2008. Ex.C-8 is the copy of the letter from Asst. Director, Animal Husbandry, Kundpaura to Asst. Executive Engineer, MESCOM, Byndoor. Ex.C-9 is the valuation report issued by the Asst. Director, Animal Husbandry Hospital, Kundapura. Ex.C-10 is the order dated 29.11.2008 passed by Superintendent of Engineer, O & M Circle, MESCOM, Mangalore. Ex.C-11 is the legal notice dated 31.12.2008 issued to the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3.

Contd…….5

16. We have perused the above said documents produced by the Complainant. In Ex.C-4, 5 and 6 the Complainant has sought for the compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards the accidental death of the she buffalo. Ex.C-7 is the post mortem report, wherein the Asst. Director, Animal Husbandary Hospital, Kundapur has given the opinion as to cause of death as “the death is due to cardiac arrest, suggestion of electrocution”. After inspection and conducting of post mortem the Asst. Director, Animal Husbandary Hospital, Kundapur has given the valuation report as per Ex.C-9 and he has certified the market value of the deceased she buffalo at Rs.10,000/-. On the basis of the aforesaid documents, the Superintendent of Engineer, O & M Circle, MESCOM, Mangalore has passed an order on 29.11.2008 as per Ex.C-10 which speaks as under:


17. After the said order the Opposite Parties have not paid even the ordered value to the Complainant. Hence, Complainant got issued the legal notice as per Ex.C-11 dated 31.12.2008 to the Opposite Parties calling upon them to make payment of Rs.15,000/- and for compensation, etc. In spite of the service of notice, Opposite Parties have not replied the said legal notice nor complied with the request of the Complainant.



18. The counsel for the Opposite Party argued that the Complainant is a ‘consumer’ only in respect of the R.R. number provided for him. There is no deficiency in service in supply of current in respect of RR No.BY 1834 and RR.No.BY 1682 and is not a consumer other than the aforesaid connections. The transformer belonging to the Opposite Party was being maintained service rendered without any complaint at any point of time before the alleged accident. The insulator covering the fuses was broken due to heavy rain and wind on 12.8.2008 and there was earthening of the current in the G.I. Pipe. The accidental death caused by the “Act of God” due to breaking of insulator for which the Opposite Party is not liable. The duty is cast on the Complainant to have tied the She buffalo for grazing rather than allowing it to graze everywhere. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

Contd…..6

19. Ex.C-10 is the order dated 29.11.2008 passed by the Respondent company

Superintendent of Engineer, O & M Circle, MESCOM, Mangalore. On perusal of the same the Opposite Party has admitted its liability and granted only Rs.2,500/- without any basis. Exs.C-9 is the valuation report issued by Asst. Director, Animal Husbandry Hospital, Kundapur and certified that the market value of the deceased she buffalo was Rs.10,000/- which has not been taken into consideration by the Opposite Parties while passing the order as per Ex.C-10. They have considered only the age of the female buffalo in the said report but not the market value of the deceased She Buffalo. We are of the opinion that the Opposite Party is not justified in allowing only Rs.2,500/- as compensation. Non payment of the compensation to the Complainant as per the records, inspite of service of legal notice certainly amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, we answer the point No.1 in the Affirmative.



Point No.2 & 3:

20. In view of the affirmative answer to point No.1, we are of the opinion that the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs and basing on the valuation report given by the Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry Hospital, Kundapur granting sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the loss of the She Buffalo will meet the ends of justice. Hence, we answer the point No.2 in the Affirmative.

Ashok Pascal Norohna,

S/o George Noronha,

A.J. Industries, Moodabettu,

Shankarpura Post,

Udupi Taluk.





………… Complainant



vs



1. The Asst. Executive Engineer(MESCOM),

Kapu Sub-Division, Udupi Taluk.



2. The Executive Engineer (MESCOM)

Udupi Division, Maruthi Veethika,

Udupi – 576 101.



3. The Chairman & Managing Director,

Mangalore Ele. Supply Co. Ltd.,

Paradigm Plaza, A.B.Shetty Circle,

Pandeshwar, Mangalore – 575 001.






…….. Opposite Parties







1. The Complainants filed this complaint u/s 12 of CPA alleging deficiency in service and prayed to direct the Opposite Parties to demand billing under LT-5 and Bill in respect of the installation KPSR No.22320 and to refund the excess amount so collected including the difference paid at the time of filing the appeals alongwith interest @12% from 23.03.2009 and cost of litigation, etc.



2. The case of the Complainant is that he is a consumer of electricity for the purpose of Wet grinding of rice, wheat gram/Bengal gram, daal etc, for making idlis, chakkulis rice, roti etc using the electric motors to run the grinders power duly supplied by the First Opposite Party after satisfying himself that the

Contd……..2

Complainant had satisfied all the legal requirements and rules of the Opposite Party. The power supply connections was given on 9.9.1998. The petitioner was given power supply under LT-5 tariff rate to his installation KPSR No.22320 with (Max 5 H.P.) or 5 K.V. by the KEB (now MESCOM) Kaup Sub Division under Udupi Division in Udupi District. The power supply is rated under the tariff rate LT-5 which is applicable to the nature of the use of the electric power as per the published tariff rates of KPTCL and approved by the Karnataka Electric Regulatory Commission, Bangalore .



3. The Complainant submits that the monthly reading was done the bill given by the 1st Opposite Party was being regularly paid by the Complainant and there was no complaint what so ever in this respect. On 20.09.2001 Revenue Monitoring Authority, Udupi inspected the installation KPSR No.22320 of the Petitioner and on 23.11.2001 first Opposite Party enquired with the Executive Engineer Udupi (2nd Opposite Party) to decide the tariff to the installation of the Petitioner and the Executive Engineer, Udupi vide his letter No.13427/31-12-2001 directed to charge at LT-5 tariff.



4. The Complainant further submits that on 26.03.2002 Opposite Party’s accounts/Audit Officer Udupi Division said to have reviewed the matter directed the 1st Opposite Party to revise the charge and to charge under LT-3 and to back bill from 01.01.2001. The 1st Opposite Party informed the same decision to the Complainant vide his letter dated 11.06.2002.



5. On 21.06.2002 the petitioner as per demand of 1st Opposite Party paid 25% of the difference and filed an appeal over the revision and back billing with the 2nd Opposite Party the Executive Engineer, Udupi the first Appellate Authority. The hearing of the appeal took place the petitioner submitted his points on26.07.2002 and the judgment and order was announced on 30.12.2002. The3 same was received by the petitioner by post on 07.01.2003.



6. The petitioner referred the matter to the Chairman KERC, Bangalore on 9.1.2003 but the KERC had asked the petitioner to file appeal before the Second Appellate Authority at Mangalore. On 11.03.2003 the Second appeal was filed,

Contd………3

sent by registered Post to the Second Appellate Authority (the 3rd Opposite Party) at the Superintending Engineer’s Office, MESCOM, Mangalore and the same was received on 13.03.2003.



7. That on 22.05.2003 the 1st Opposite Party informed to make full amount of the demand as they have not received any communications as to the receipt of the appeal and he would disconnect the power supply to the installation. In fact this Officer had refused to, it is submitted receive and forward the appeal which was sent A: Protest letter to Asst. Engineer, Kaup, the 1st Opposite Party for his unlawful attitude and complained to Chairman, KERC Bangalore 29.05.2003.



8. On 14.06.2003 complaint by e-mail to Chairman KERC, Bangalore about non disposal of the Second appeal and the same was replied by Mr.Y.G.Muralidharan, Consultant (Consumer Advocacy). The 3rd Opposite Party 25 MESCOM, Mangalore informed stay of the functioning of the Second Appellate Authority by the Hon’ble High Court at Bangalore and hence there will be delay in disposal of the appeal.



9. On 19.05.2005 a Notice under Sec.80 CPC issued through email and copy under post, to the Chairman and M.D. with copies to KERC and Secretary KPTCL and to the Minister in charge of Electricity demanding disposal of the appeal. A reply by MESCOM, Mangalore on 23.05.2005 informing the same tune that the authority of the Second Appellate Authority is stayed by the High Court, but this Authority was not aware of the provisions of amended Law and the Rules as on that date.



10. On 21.10.2005 written note demanding excess amount received /collected from the Petitioner keeping pending the Second Appeal and also informing initiating legal action against the officials concerned for their in action.



11. Petitioner submits that he was given electric power connection under LT-5 tariff rate after considering all the factors and unilaterally changing the tariff and back billing is unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. The oorders passed by the 2nd Opposite Party (First Appellate Authority, at Udupi) dated

Contd…..4

30.12.2002 against the Complainant in respect of his electric installation No.KPSR No.22320 under the Kaup Sub Division is unlawful and unjust and is liable to refund the excess amount collected by way of difference in tariff under LT5 and LT3. It amounts to more than Rs.2.0 lakhs as at the bill as on 23.03.2009, is liable to be refunded with interest. The Opposite Parties have failed to honour the rules and the tariff approved by the authority and also under false pretext unduly taxed the Complainant. The Complainant is a consumer and the Opposite Party have failed in the service as per the agreement and thus commite3d deficiency in service and the dispute is a consumer dispute as per the provisions of C.P. Act 1986.



12. The Complainant had followed all the rules and procedures in connection of the matter. There is no violation of theft of electric power or delay in making the payments in respect of the demand made by the Opposite Parties. The only remedy/rectification is to revise the orders of the 1st appellate authority and to refund excess amount collected by change of tariff and thus compensate the Complainant as per the law invoked.



13. The Complainant is a ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act. The Opposite Parties are the service providers supply of electric power to run the motors of wet grinding as required for the productions of Idlis, Chakkulis, Rice, Roti etc, and the tariff applicable is LT-5 as per the approved and published Tariff Rates Schedules as applicable to users of Electricity in Karnataka. Hence this complaint.



14. After service of notice, Opposite Parties have appeared through their counsel and Opposite Party No.1 filed the version and Opposite Party No.2 and 3 adopts the version of Opposite Party No.1.



15. Opposite Parties have contended that the complaint is wholly false and frivolous and the same is not maintainable either at law or on merits.



16. Opposite Parties does not admit the various allegations that are made against the Opposite Parties.

Contd……5

17. While admitting that the Complainant as availed the electricity supply for his industry in the preparation of Iddlies, Rice, Rotti, etc., in Moddabettu Village of Udupi Taluk and obtained licence for trade from Katapady Grama Panchayath on 31.03.2000, submits that this Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with the controversy in question as there is no consumer disputes within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 he being a trader. On this sole ground, the complaint will have to be thrown out by the Forum.



18. At the time of service of the installation the tariff was fixed at LT-5. The Revenue Monitory Accounts officer on inspection of the installation found use of supply for commercial purpose namely trading in sale of Iddlies, rice rotties, etc. The electricity bill paid by the Complainant earlier under tariff LT5 were erroneous and supplementary bills revising the same under tariff LT3.



19. The Complainant questioned the said supplementary demand by filing first appeal before first appellate authority (Executive Engineer Udupi Division) under regulation number 44.01 of the electricity supply and distribution code 2000-01. After enquiry the first appeal was dismissed by the first appellate authority on 30.12.2002. But no second appeal under regulation 44.05 of the aforesaid code was filed by the Complainant in accordance with the law or thereafter under new code. Therefore a finality has been reached in the matter and it is not opened to once again and seek press decision which is not permissible at law.



20. There is no question of refund of the amount legitimately recovered from the Complainant. Further this court cannot sit over judgment of first appellate court dated 30.12.2002 against which no second appeal in accordance with the law has been filed by the Complainant. Neither KERC nor Corporate Officer has got jurisdiction to decide the correctness of the order of first appellate court.



21. In conclusion this Opposite Party denies the claim in toto and prays to dismiss the complaint since there is no deficiency in service.

Contd……6

22. The Complainant have filed 23 documents which are marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-23. Opposite Parties have produced 1 document which is marked as Ex,.R-1. Parties have filed affidavits, interrogatories and reply affidavits. Both parties filed notes of arguments. We heard both the parties.



23. Now the point that arises for our considerations are as follows:

1) Whether the Complainant is a ‘consumer’ as defined in the C.P. Act?

2) Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint?

3) Whether the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?

4 Whether the complainant is entitled for reliefs? If so.

5) What order?

REASONS

Point No.1 & 2:

24. The case of the Complainant is that he is a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act and he has availed the services of the Opposite Parties for consideration. Admittedly the Complainant has been given the electrical connection to his Tiny Industrial Unit M/s. A.J.Industries, situated at Moodabettu, Shankarpura Post, Udupi District No.KPSR 22320 vide R.R.No.10812 since 1998. Since the installation, the Complainant has been paying the electrical consumption charges to the Opposite Party regularly. The Opposite Party submitted that there is no consumer disputes between the Complainant and the Opposite Party and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. In this case the Opposite Party denies the allegation contained in the complaint. Hence there is a consumer dispute. The Complainant has referred a citation reported in AIR 2008 (NOC) 2258 (NCC), wherein in the head note stated as under:

“(A) Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986) S.3 – Electricity Act (36 of 2003, SS 173, 174 and S.175 – Rights of consumer under Consumer Protection Act – Are not affected by Electricity Act – Provisions of Electricity Act do not override provisions of Consumer Protection Act.



(B) Electricity act (36 of 2003), Ss 145, 126 – consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S.3 – Expression “other authority in S.145 – Does not include consumer fora – Jurisdiction of consumer fora is not barred in respect of any matter under S.126 of Electricity Act.

Contd……7





(C) Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986) Ss. 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g) – Consumer – Definition – Includes of consumer of electrical energy – Complaint alleging any deficiency on part of Board or other private company – Maintainable under Consumer Protection Act.



Under Section 3 of C.P. Act : The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provision of any other law for the time being in force. The remedy provided under the Act is in addition to the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. The provisions of this Act give the consumer an additional remedy besides those that may be available under other existing laws; The Consumer & Citizens Forum v. Karnataka Power Corporation, 1994(I) CPR 130.



25. In view of the above decisions and the admitted facts, we hold that the Complainant is “consumer” and the dispute between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties is the “consumer dispute” and this Forum has the jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Hence, point Nos.1 and 2 answered in the Affirmative.



Point No.3:

26. It is the case of the Complainant that he had applied for electrical supply for his Tiny Industrial Unit for wet grinding of rice, dall, etc for preparing Idli, Rotti and Chakkuli, etc and he had obtained the licence from the concerned authorities like Directorate of Industries and Commerce as per Ex.C-9 category of the enterprise : Micro / Manufacture, Nature of Activity : Rice, Roti, Idli and from the District Industrial Centre as per Ex.C-6. The Opposite Party had inspected the site and passed the application for power supply under LT-5 Tariff. The scheme approved by the authorities– KERC Bangalore, the power supply granted was 4.5 HP for four wet grinders, Lights and fans and accordingly the power was used and being used within the sanctioned load. Since 1998 the Complainant has been using the said power connection only for the required necessity of his Tiny Industries. On 7.1.2003 the Complainant received a notice for paying extra bill dated 11.6.2002 for Rs.20,073/-. On 20.9.2001 A.O., Revenue Monitoring Officer inspected the Industrial unit of the Complainant and submitted a report with consultation with Executive Engineer, Udupi regarding the classification of power supply. As per the letter dated 31.12.2001 issued by the inspected to fix the

Contd……8

tariff under LT-3 holding that the business of the Complainant is a commercial Activity. The Internal Auditor, Udupi calculated the back billing at LT-3 at the rate of LT-3 from June 2001 to June 2002 and submitted a report of Less demand of Rs.20,075/-.



27. The Complainant has produced the LT-5 Tariff schedule which is marked as Ex.C-7, which shows that Wet Grinding appears in LT-5 tariff schedule and not in LT-3 schedule. So also Bakery products preparation unit, appears in LT-5 tariff. The Complainant argued that when bakery product unit is charged under LT-5 the Complainant is also shall be considered under LT-5 as originally sanction. Since the tariff schedule are approved by the KERC and prescribed by authority and notified, the Opposite Parties cannot change the tariff rate prejudicially to the consumer. Opposite Parties have changed the Tariff unilaterally.



28. After receipt of notice for paying payment of extra bill dated 11.6.2002 for Rs.20,073/- the Complainant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. Which passed an order dismissing the appeal of the Complainant on 30.12.2002 which was received by the Complainant on 7.1.2003, the reason for the dismissal of the appeal as given as under:



Hence, the 1st Appeal before the Executive Engineer, Udupi District questioning the fixation of LT-3 Tariff was dismissed on 30.12.2002. Against the said order the Complainant preferred a second appeal on 11.2.2003 before the MESCOM, Mangalore. During the pendency of the second appeal, on coming into force of Electricity Act 2003 on 27.01.2004, the authority had last its jurisdiction. The Complainant approached KERC in O.P.No.8/06 prayed for the same relief. The authority after going through the records passed an order on 5th March 2009 rejected the appeal on the ground of maintainability with a liberty to approach the petitioner any other appropriate forum available under the law to redress his grievance on merits, if he so desired. The appeal was dismissed only on the ground of maintainability and not on the ground of legality or otherwise of the changing the Tariff from LT-5 to LT-3. Hence the Complainant approached this Forum.



29. On going through the order passed by the 1st Appellate authority it is evident that appeal was dismissed only on the basis of the clarification issued by the Chief Engineer, Bangalore. The clarification itself is not based on the proper or lawful reasoning. He has opined that even though the products are not sold on the spot of the unit, the intention of the unit is for the sale of the products. Hence he directed to collect the electric charges on LT-3 tariff. The contention of the Complainant is that it is a self employment unit out of which he earns his livelihood, he has to sell the products produced by him to his customers outside it does not mean that it is a commercial activity. The Complainant cannot consume all the products produced by him just like the Bakery items are sold to the public. The order of back billing is not proper and without justification.

Contd……10

30. Before the sanction of power to the Tiny Industrial Unit of the Complainant the officials of the 1st Opposite Party inspected the spot and sent a installation report under LT-5 as per Ex.C-7. Since the date of installation upto 2001 January the consumption charges were collected as per LT-5 Tariff. The report of the Revenue Monitoring Accounts Officer is not proper and without any basis or valid reasons. It appears that there is departmental bias in dealing with the problem of the Complainant.



31. The Opposite Party before changing the tariff from LT-5 to LT-3 has not issued any notice to the Complainant. The Complainant has produced one citation reported in AIR 2009 (NOC) 973 (GAU), wherein it is held that Board having not issued any prior notification prior to adoption of resolution modifying of terms and conditions of supply - demand of enhanced demand charges from the consumer, illegal.



32. Hence, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Parties have without giving any opportunity to the Complainant regarding the change of tariff have acted arbitrarily and changed the tariff from LT-5 to LT-3 illegally without any justification and calculated the back billing and demanded the same from the Complainant and indulged in Unfair Trade Practice and thereby committed deficiency in service. Hence the point No.3 in the Affirmative.



Point No.4 and 5:

33. In view of the Affirmative answer to point Nos. 1 to 3, we hold that the Complainant is entitled the reliefs claimed. The Opposite Parties have charged at the rate of LT-3 through out from January 2001. The Complainant is liable to pay the electricity charges only under LT-5 from the date of installation continuously. There is a difference of about 2.00 lakhs. The Opposite Parties are not entitled to recover the electrical consumption charge from the Complainant under LT-3 Tariff. Hence we direct the Opposite Parties to calculate the electricity consumption charges of R.R.No.10812 of the Complainant Unit No.KPSR 22320 under LT-5 Tariff from January 2001 till date and the amount already deposited by the Complainant during the period of dispute in excess of LT-5 Tariff, be refunded to the Complainant. Hence, we answer the point No.4 in the affirmative.

Contd…..…11

34. In the result, we pass the following

ORDER

Complaint is allowed. Opposite Parties are hereby directed to calculate the electricity consumption charges of R.R.No.10812 of the Complainant Tiny Unit No.KPSR 22320 under LT-5 Tariff from January 2001 till date and in future and amount already paid / deposited by the Complainant in excess of LT-5 Tariff, be refunded to the Complainant alongwith interest at 10% per annum from the date of receipt of excess amount, till realization. Further the Opposite Parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by the Complainant plus Rs.3,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Opposite Parties shall comply with the aforesaid order within one month from the date of receipt of this order.