The appellate court confirmed lawful tariff adjustments by a utility provider and clarified that claims cannot be considered time-barred when obligations arise from due electrical charges.

JUDGEMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D : JUDICIAL MEMBER The opposite party in C.C.No.49/2017 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Malappuram (the District Commission for short) is the appellant.

2. The complaint was filed by a consumer of the KSEB alleging deficiency in service. The complainant was holding the electricity connection vide consumer No.20686. In October 2015 a bill for Rs.15,024/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand and Twenty Four only) was issued to the complainant and on 28.10.2015, the complainant filed an application for cancellation of the above notice. Since there was no response from the opposite party, he had also sent an e-mail. Later, he got another notice with a demand to pay an amount of Rs.28,774/-(Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Four only). His case is that the opposite party did not inform about the change in tariff. If the change in tariff was properly informed, the complainant could have avoided the inconvenience. So he would seek for exemption of the payment of the above amount. Hence, the complaint. 3. The opposite party had entered appearance and filed written version admitting the fact that the complainant was a consumer. The complainant had obtained a 6 B tariff connection for the office of the Advocate during the year 2000. His last payment was on 27.07.2015. Subsequently, it was noticed by the opposite party that the connection was used for displaying an advertisement board. Accordingly, on 02.02.2015 the tariff was changed to LTTA. Thereafter, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.2,153/-(Rupees Two Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Three only) and Rs.1,810/-(Rupees One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ten only) in the month of April and June respectively. Since there was some delay in updating the new tariff rate in the computer of the opposite party, it was not possible for them to issue bills for the period from 05/2013 to 02/2015. The said amount would come to Rs.15,024/-(Rupees Fifteen Thousand and Twenty Four only). Since the complainant was not ready to pay the amount, the connection was disconnected.

4. On 28.10.2015 the complainant himself had sought for the disconnection of the electric supply. On 28.12.2016 the connection was dismantled. Subsequently, on 18.01.2017 a pre-revenue recovery notice was issued to the complainant and thereafter a Revenue Recovery notice was issued on 10.02.2017. The Electricity Regulatory Commission is the authority to fix the tariff. The complainant had paid the higher rate of tariff on two occasions. The opposite party had demanded the due amount which arose before the cancellation of the connection. Actually, the connection was granted for an Advocate's office and the same was used for the display of advertisement board and accordingly, the tariff was changed. There is no illegality on the part of the opposite party and hence the opposite party would seek for the dismissal of the complaint.

5. On the side of the complainant, no oral evidence was let in. The complainant had filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked. The opposite party had also filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination. Exhibit B1 to B8 were marked. On evaluating the entire evidence on record, the District Commission had allowed the complaint and passed the following order:

The demand notice dated 15.01.2017 for an amount of Rs.28,774/-(Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy Four only) was ordered to be cancelled and restriction was also imposed on the opposite party from taking legal action against the complainant including Revenue Recovery proceedings. Compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) and costs Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only)

w