JUDGMENT : Vineet Saran, J. 1. The appellant is a consumer of electricity which is supplied by the respondent 1-Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Limited (for short, 'Corporation'). Under the Tariff Order, 2005, issued by the Corporation, a Special Incentive Scheme was provided for, under which, to attract the consumers of electricity who were likely to contract heavy demand and were likely to leave the Corporation and avail some other source of electricity, this Special Incentive Scheme was promulgated. Under the said scheme, for the consumption of up to 20% of electricity above the contract demand, a special discounted rate of Rs. 3.80 per unit was to be charged. The said scheme, provided for that up to 20% increase in contract demand would be allowed to the consumer during the currency of the scheme without any special request from the consumer. Further it was provided that, penalty would be imposed for exceeding the maximum demand under the Scheme, which would thus be 120% of the sanctioned contract demand and the minimum billing demand shall also be enhanced accordingly. A similar provision was there in the Tariff Order, 2003, which was clarified by the Managing Director of the KERC by communication dated 23-2-2004, to mean that, if the consumer avails the additional energy (up to 20%) without enhancing the contract demand, they shall be permitted to do so and shall be allowed to continue at the same level of contract demand. 2. In the present case, the contract demand of the appellant was 1590 KVA, 75% of which comes to 1192.50, which would be the minimum consumption on which the billing was to be done even if the appellant had not consumed any electricity. It is admitted that, after having opted for the scheme, the appellant had never asked for increase of the contract demand by 20% of the already contracted demand or otherwise. Relying on a clarification issued by the KERC of the Corporation in the case of some other consumer which did not relate to the case of the appellant-consumer, the Corporation, for the months of June 2008 to December 2008, billed the appellant for a minimum of 75% of the contracted demand treating the contracted demand to be 20% higher than the sanctioned contract demand of 1590 KVA i.e. treating the contracted demand to be 1908 KVA instead of 1590 KVA. For these seven months from June to December 2008, the consumption recorded in the meter was throughout less than 1431 KVA, but above 1192 KVA. 3. The appellant-consumer had paid the bills for the consumption of electricity for the said seven months, but subsequently on 3-1-2009, a demand was raised on the basis that the appellant was to be billed for minimum 1431 KVA every month (being 75% of the contract demand + 20%). Accordingly, a demand of Rs. 1,04,066/- was raised, which was challenged by the appellant before the respondent 3-Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum. The representation of the appellant having been rejected by respondent 3, the appellant filed an appeal before the respondent 2-Ombudsman appointed under the provisions of Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Ombudsman) Regulations, 2004, which allowed the appeal by reasoned order dated 26-3-2010. Challenging the said order, the respondent 1-Corporation filed Writ Petition No. 22083 of 2010, which having been allowed by the judgment and order dated 19-8-2011, this appeal has been filed. 4. We have heard Sri M.S. Raghavendra Prasad, learned Counsel for the appellant, as well as Sri H.V. Devaraju, learned Counsel representing Sri N.K. Gupta, Counsel for the contesting respondent 1 and perused the records. 5. It is not disputed that the Special Incentive Scheme of the respondent-Corporation was meant to woo back the industrial consumers to the grid who were resorting to captive generation. It was to encourage usage of additional energy at concessional rates, meaning thereby, the scheme was for the benefit of the heavy consumers of electricity and not to penalise them. The clarification given by the KERC vide communication dated 23-2-2004 was specific to the extent that, unless there was a request for enhancing the contract demand, the contract demand would continue to be the same as was sanctioned by the Corporation. The benefit was given to the consumer for being provided electricity at concessional rate, if they availed additional electricity up to 20% of the contract demand which was to be the sanctioned contract demand. The benefit was given to the consumer for being provided electricity at concessional rate, if they availed additional electricity up to 20% of the contract demand which was to be the sanctioned contract demand. The respondent 2, has, after considering the totality of the circumstances as well as the reasons for which the scheme was initiated by the respondent-Corporation, arrived at a finding of fact that the complainant neither made any request for increase in the contract demand, nor exceeded the contract demand, and thus relying on the clarification issued by the KERC on 23-2-2004, held that 75% of the contract demand would be that of the sanctioned contract demand and not 75% of 120% of the contract demand. The respondent 2, thus allowed the appeal of the consumer and quashed the order dated 29-9-2009 raising additional demand and directed for refund of the additional amount which was charged from the consumer by way of adjustment in future bills. 6. The learned Single Judge has ignored the clarification of the KERC dated 23-2-2004 after holding that the same was issued prior to the Tariff Order of 2005, without noticing the fact that the Special Incentive Scheme to HT consumers was identically worded in the Tariff Order of 2003 as it was in the Tariff Order of 2005. As such, in our view, the clarification issued by the KERC with regard to the provisions of the Tariff Order, 2003, would be applicable in the case under Tariff Order, 2005. We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Ombudsman-respondent 2 was perfectly justified in law and in terms of the Special Incentive Scheme of the KERC, the purpose of which was to benefit the consumer and not to penalise. We thus, allow this appeal and set aside the order passed by the Writ Court and uphold the order passed by the respondent 2-Ombudsman. No order as to costs.