SRI. S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
By the order dated 10.12.04 in OP.297/03 the CDRF, Alappuzha has quashed the bill dated 24.3.03 and directed the opposite parties to refund the deposit amount remitted for the three phase connection and also restrained the opposite parties from levying any amount from the complainant during the disconnected period from 3.10.03. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the present appeal is filed by the opposite parties.
2. The brief facts of the case bereft of unnecessary details are that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties and that he was running an oil mill and from 1990 onwards it was functioning as a Match factory. The complainant has stopped the functioning of the Match factory in 1999 and on 31.3.99 he has submitted an application to perpetuate the single phase connection to light connection and dismantle the motor connection. Deposit amount was also requested to be refunded along with a prayer that the tariff from LT IV be changed to IA. The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties did not dismantle the connection and continued to issue regular bills for Rs.280/- till 17.3.01.. It is the further case of the complainant that he was given bills for the subsequent period also even though there was his request for disconnection and dismantling. Alleging deficiency in service complaint was filed praying for directions to cancel the bill for Rs.4775/- alleged to be the arrears from 19.9.02 to 24.5.03 and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with costs.
3. Contesting the matter the opposite parties filed version where it was submitted that the complainant was a consumer having commercial tariff and that he was running an oil mill till 1990 which was turned to be a match factory from then onwards. It is the case of the opposite parties that the complainant did not inform the change of the oil mill to match factory and that only on 9.4.01 an application was made for perpetuating the light meter and for dismantling the other connection and that on getting the said application inspection was conducted by the opposite parties. The opposite parties further submitted that on inspection it was found that there was a ration shop functioning in the premises and hence the tariff could not be changed to IA. It is also their case that the supply was disconnected subsequent to failure of the complainant to remit the bills. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
4. The evidence consisted of the documents marked by the complainant as Exts.A1 to A10 and B1 on the side of the opposite party.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that the order of the Forum below in allowing the complaint to a grater extent is per se illegal and unsustainable. It is his very case that the forum did not appreciate the real facts and the contentions raised by the opposite parties in the version. The learned counsel argued before us that as there was a ration shop functioning in the premises, the tariff could not be changed to IA which is domestic tariff. He argued for the position that as soon as the application for disconnection was received the premises was inspected and the supply was disconnected on 12.5.05 itself and the light meter was perpetuated. It is also argued by him that as the complainant used the energy for commercial purpose(ration shop) the opposite parties issued bill as per VII A tariff. Contending that there was no deficiency of service in issuing the bills, the learned counsel argued for the position that Forum below ought to have dismissed the complaint in toto.
6. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusing the records produced by him we find that it is the admitted fact that the complainant had been a consumer of the appellants/opposite parties. It is also found that only on 9.4.01(Ext.A3) that the complainant had given an application for dismantling the power connection. The Forum has found that the delay of one month in dismantling the connection on 12.5.01 is deficiency in service. But we do not find that there was inordinate delay in dismantling the service connection on 12.5.01. The application is seen given on 9.4.01. Naturally the opposite parties have to inspect the premises and verify the position. It is only reasonable that there happened a delay of one month.
7. The Forum below has quashed Ext.A3 demand dated 24.3.03 for Rs.4776/-. It is alleged to be the arrears from 19.9.02 to 24.5.03. On a perusal of the order, it is seen that the complainant has given an application for changing the tariff on 19.9.2002 and on 5.10.02. However it is also observed though the complainant has submitted that he is entitled to IA tariff, no evidence is adduced to support the said request of the complainant. Appellants/opposite parties submitted that a ration shop was being run in the premises and hence tariff could not be changed to IA. We do not find any reasons to disbelieve the said case of the opposite parties. However the Forums direction to refund the deposit amount remitted for 3 phase connection can be considered by the opposite parties.
In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order dated 10.12.04 in OPNo.A.297/2003 of CDRF, Alappuzha. The respondent/complainant is at liberty to get back the deposited amount of the 3 phase connection and the appellants/opposite parties are directed to refund the same as per rules. In the nature and circumstances of the present appeal there is no order as to costs.