SECRETARY, K.S.E.B. Vs. YESU ADIMANADAR
LAWS(KERCDRC)-2009-5-13
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on May 23,2009

SECRETARY, K.S.E.B. Appellant
VERSUS
Yesu Adimanadar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR, MEMBER - (1.)THE opposite parties in OP No. 151/04 are under directions to cancel the bill dated 16/6/04 amounting to Rs. 92,057/ - and are also directed not to change the complainants tariff along with the further direction not to interfere with the supply to the premises of the complainant. It is aggrieved by the said directions that the opposite parties have come up in appeal calling for the interference of this Commission as to the sustainability of the order passed by the Forum below.
(2.)THE complainant has approached the Forum alleging that he was issued with a bill dated 16/6/04 for an amount of Rs. 92,057/ - with a warning that the supply would be disconnected if the bill was not paid before the due date. It is his case that he had been regularly remitting the amount under LT IV category and that his unit was registered under S.S.I. Scheme. He has submitted before the Forum that the bill issued was arbitrarily and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and praying for directions to the opposite parties to cancel the bill and not to interfere with the supply, the complaint was filed.
(3.)RESISTING the complaint the opposite parties filed a version contending that the Regional Audit Officer, KSEB, Thodupuzha had noted that the cardamom processing unit of the complainant ought to have been included in LT VII A tariff on the ground that drying of cardamom would not come under industrial tariff since the process involved did not produce a new product. It was also submitted that the complainant was included in LT IV tariff on the presumption that the complainants unit came under industrial consumers. It was further submitted that consequent to the detection of the mistake committed earlier they have issued a bill for 6 months and the complainant was liable to pay the said amount. Contending that there was no deficiency in service, the opposite parties prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. 3. The evidence consisted of the affidavit filed by the complainant and Ext. P1 to P6. On the side of the opposite parties the work register was marked as Ext. R1.
Heard both sides.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.