ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ELECTRICITY WING THRISSUR CORPORATION Vs. ADVOCATE E.B.SHAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal is preferred by the opposite parties in OP:478/05 which was filed by the respondent herein as complainant to get the bill dated 15.4.2005 cancelled. The case of the complainant is that one room in his house is used as his office for doing his profession as an Advocate. But the opposite party/Thrissur Corporations, the licenses who is authourised supply of electricity in that area treated the electricity connection under the tariff VI B, i.e., the said electricity connection has been treated as commercial one. The Forum below accepted the case of the complainant/consumer and thereby the opposite parties are directed to cancel the impugned bill dated: 15.4.2005 and to pay Rs. 1,500/ - as cost. Aggrieved by the said order dated 31.10.2006 passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in OP:478/05, the present appeal is preferred.

(2.) We heard the counsel for the appellants ant the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellants, challenge the correctness of the impugned order passed by the Forum below. He justified the action of the opposite party/Thrissur Corporation in issuing the impugned bill dated 15.4.2005. On the other hand, the learned counsel, for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and the conclusion of the Forum below. He much relied on the decision rendered by the Apex Court in MP Electricity Board v. Siva Narayan.

(3.) The points that arise for consideration are: -