By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,

Facts in brief:-

1. Complainant applied for a high tension service connection to opposite party for the hotel and lodge he intended to start in the five storied building at Valancherry. As initial step he remitted security deposit of Rs.13,700/- after applying for power allocation. Power allocation was allowed as per order dated, 21-11-2006. As per this order complainant had to complete work and avail the power supply within six months from the date of order. Thereafter as per demand of opposite party he deposited Rs.39,333/- on 05-12-2006 as O.Y.E.C. charges. Complainant applied for sanction of installation of D.P. structure which was allowed on 01-12-2006. Complainant purchased transformer for Rs.4,56,620/- and ancilliary materials for Rs.1,03,380/-. As per instructions of opposite party the transformer and other materials were send for test report and complainant incurred further expenses for this. Complainant had purchased 3 x 150mm² XLPE cable on 20-3-2006 for drawing the line from the D.P. Structure to the transformer. This cable size was to be approved by opposite party and complainant submitted application for cable approval/sanction on 18-12-2006. It is stated that opposite party committed inordinate delay in giving cable approval. Complainant approached opposite parties several times and made enquiries. At that time opposite parties made the complainant run between their offices at Tirur, Valancherry and Kozhikkode stating that the file is missing. Later opposite party gave the cable sanction on 13-02-2008 and this order was given to complainant only on 08-6-2008. Complainant applied for service connection on 25-4-2008. As per the demand of opposite party on 09-6-2008 complainant deposited Rs.9,171/- as estimate for supervision charges and Rs.5,320/- towards supervision charges for fitting energy meter. Opposite party instructed that the transformer, has to be tested again, because six months period is over after the first test report. Complainant then send the transformer for testing again on 11-6-2008. That complainant had complied with all the formalities within time. It is stated that the delay in availing supply occurred only due to latches on the part of opposite party to give cable sanction within reasonable time. On 19-6-2008 opposite party issued a letter demanding the complainant to deposit Rs.6,52,400/- as minimum demand charges for not availing the power allocation within time. Complainant alleges that the delay occurred only due to latches on the part of opposite party and that therefore complainant is not liable to pay any amount towards minimum demand charges. Hence this complaint alleging deficiency in service and praying to set aside the demand for payment of Rs.6,52,400/-. Complainant also seeks for a direction against opposite party to provide service connection immediately along with compensation of Rs.12 lakhs with costs of Rs.75,000/-.

2. Opposite party filed version admitting that complainant had applied for H.T. Connection to Grand Residency. It is also admitted that complainant applied for power allocation and remitted initial security deposit of Rs.13,700/- on 18-11-2006. Opposite party submits that power allocation was ordered on 21-11-2006. That as per this order it is stipulated that power supply has to be availed by the complainant within six months from the date of order, ie., before 21-5-2007. It is also stipulated in the order that on failure to avail supply within this period complainant will be liable to pay the prescribed minimum demand charges. Opposite party admits that administrative sanction for installation for D.P. Structure was accorded on 01-12-2006 and complainant deposited Rs.39,333/- on 05-12-2006 as O.Y.E.C. Charges. Opposite party submits that complainant purchased 3 x 150mm² XLPE cable on 20-3-2006 itself and he applied for approval of this cable size on 18-12-2006. As per norms of Kerala State Electricity Board usually sanction is given for 3 x 240mm² XLPE cable size. The application submitted by complainant on 18-12-2006 for approval of cable size was returned on 19-01-2007 with direction to resubmit the application along with affidavit of complainant, cable route map and the present position of the work. Complainant then resubmitted the application along with these documents on 27-02-2007. It is true that opposite party had stated in this document showing the present position of work that complainant had completed 90% of the work. That even at that time complainant had not completed the installation work. The cable sanction was usually given only from the office of Chief engineer. The file submitted for cable sanction in the office of the Chief Engineer was returned to the office of the Deputy Chief Engineer with direction to allow cable sanction. This fact was informed to the complainant directly. The delay in giving cable sanction occurred only because complainant was repeatedly insisting to approve the undersized cable. The sanction to use 3 x 240mm² XLPE cable was given from the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle on 01-4-2008. That complainant had obtained Possession Certificate of the building only on 26-9-2007 and energization approval only on 19-12-2007. Thereafter complainant applied for service connection on 24-5-2008 which was beyond the time stipulated. As per Condition 7 (vii) of the Power allocation order complainant has to complete work, apply for service connection and avail supply within six months from the date of power allocation order. Complainant failed to comply with this condition and is therefore liable to pay the prescribed minimum demand charges. On 19-6-2008 a letter was issued to complainant to deposit balance security deposit, service connection charges and minimum demand charges of Rs.6,52,400/-. Complainant applied to opposite party on 20-6-2008 to exempt the minimum demand charge to which opposite party has issued reply stating that complainant has to pay the amount in order to receive supply. Opposite party is unaware of the complainant getting the transformer tested again and opposite party does not know anything about the use of generator in the hotel. It is also false to say that complainant was made to run between offices of opposite party stating that the file is missing. The delay occurred only due to latches on the part of complainant. There is no deficiency in service. Other allegations are denied as false. Complainant can be provided with supply only if he deposits the amount as stated in the letter dated, 19-6-2008. Hence complaint may be dismissed.

3. Evidence consists of affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A18 marked for complainant. Opposite party filed counter affidavit and Exts.B1 to B7 marked for opposite party.

4. Points for consideration:-

(i) Whether opposite parties are deficient in service.

(ii) If so, reliefs and costs.

5. Point (i):-

The main grievance of the complainant is that he is not liable to pay Rs.6,52,400/- as minimum demand charges. According to complainant the delay to avail power supply occurred only due to latches on the part of opposite parties to give cable sanction ie., approval for the use of 3 x 150mm² XLPE cable size. Due to the delay committed by opposite parties he could not complete the work and avail power supply within time.

6. The complaint is resisted by opposite party relying upon Ext.B1 which is the power allocation order dated, 21-11-2006. Clause seven of this order states the various conditions of power allocation. Clause 7 (vii) reads as under:

“If power supply is not availed within six months from the date of this order the industry has to pay the prescribed minimum charges”.

It is submitted on behalf of opposite party that complainant ought to have availed the power supply within 6 months from 21-11-2006 ie., on or before 21-5-2007. It is the case of opposite party that complainant had applied for service connection after completing works only on 24-5-2008 which is much belated and therefore complainant is liable to pay Rs.6,52,400/- which is the minimum demand charges. That complainant is bound by the conditions in Ext.B1.

7. On behalf of complainant it is contended that complainant had fulfilled and complied with all requirements as per instructions and directions at the earliest and that there was no delay on the part of complainant. It is the case of complainant that the delay occurred only because opposite party failed to give sanction on the application submitted by complainant for approval of the 3 x 150mm² XLPE cable size. It was also submitted that only after receiving this approval the line using the cable could be drawn from the D.P. structure to transformer and the work could be completed before energizing the connection. Complainant pleads and affirms that opposite party gave cable sanction belatedly by order dated, 13-02-2008 and that this order was communicated to complainant only on 08-6-2008. Complainant has not produced any document to support this contention. The case of opposite party is that the cable approval was given on 01-4-2008. This is definitely belated. Opposite party contends that complainant was insisting on the approval of the undersized cable which caused the delay. Admittedly complainant applied for cable sanction on 18-12-2006 and this application was resubmitted with necessary documents on 27-02-2008. Last date to avail power supply is 21-5-2007. Opposite party submits that cable sanction was given only on 01-4-2008. Ext.B4 is an application dated, 03-4-2008 in which complainant has requested opposite party to consider and approve the undersized cable purchased by him. Ext.B4 would go to show that cable sanction to use 3 x 240mm² XLPE was given on 01-4-2008 and that complainant repeated his request to approve the undersized cable (3 x 150mm² XLPE) by submitting Ext.B4 application. Opposite party does not have a case that without obtaining cable sanction complainant would be provided with power supply. It is clear that opposite party has taken more than one year to take a decision upon the application for cable approval. When specific time has been stipulated to the consumer in power allocation order, then opposite party is duty bound to be quick and haste in taking decisions upon applications and help the consumer comply with all work formalities within time and thus avoid hardships to the consumer. The decision whether to approve or disapprove the undersized cable should be taken within at least a week and communicated to the consumer. It is candid that for some reason known only to opposite party there was inordinate delay in taking decision on the application for cable approval.

8. Complainant relied upon Ext.A2 to A15 and contended that there was no delay or latches on his part. These documents show that complainant has spend huge amount for purchasing transformer, necessary materials, conducting their tests and remitting various charges as demanded by opposite party. In Ext.A5 dated, 27-02-2007 opposite party admits that complainant has completed 90% of the work. Opposite party has not been able to state specifically which of the work was left uncompleted by complainant.

9. As per Regulation 10 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005, the Board has to issue notice of 90 days in the case of H.T. applicant before demanding minimum demand charges. Regulation 10 reads as under:

“Delay on the part of applicant to take supply:- (1) Where the Licensee has completed the work required for providing supply of electricity to an applicant but the installation of the applicant is not ready to receive supply, the Licensee shall serve a notice on the applicant to take supply within sixty days of service of the notice in the case of LT consumers and 90 days in the case of HT & EHT consumers.

(2) If after service of notice the applicant fails to take supply of electricity, the Licensee may charge fixed/minimum charges as per the tariff in force for completed months after expiry of notice till the applicant avail supply.”

Thus as per the above provision when Licensee/Board has completed the required work and applicant is not ready to receive supply within the time stipulated it is mandatory for the Board to issue 90 days notice to the applicant in the case of HT consumer. In case even after service of such notice, the applicant fails to take the supply can the Board charge the applicant for minimum demand charges. The opposite parties do not have a case that they issued any notice of 90 days within the time stipulated in Ext.B1 order communicating the complainant that the work on the side of the Board is complete. Ext.B7 is a notice issued by opposite party on 12-5-2008 stating that the installation work is over. As per Ext.B7 it has to be inferred that opposite party has completed their side of work and communicated it to the complainant only after a delay of one year. Ext.A16 notice demanding to pay minimum charges was issued on 19-6-2008 ie., after one month of issuing notice that Board has completed the work. The Regulation intends to alert the applicant/consumer to complete his work within time and serves the purpose of communicating that the Board has completed it's work. Non compliance of this mandatory provision vitiates the demand of minimum charges. Further Ext.B7 itself would go to conclusively prove that the Board was ready to give supply after completion of work on it's part only on 12-5-2008. The case of the complainant that delay occurred due to latches on the part of oposite party is probable and true. Then the applicant/complainant cannot be made liable to pay the minimum charges for the delay caused by the Board. Complainant has succeeded in establishing a case in his favour. The act of opposite parties in causing delay in taking a decision upon the application for cable approval and also the demand by opposite party for minimum charges without issuing proper notice as under regulation 10 amounts to deficiency in service. We find opposite parties deficient in service.

10. Point (ii):-

Complainant pray for the following reliefs:-

(i) to set aside the demand for minimum charges of Rs.6,52,400/-.

(ii) to issue direction against opposite party to give the service connection immediately.

(iii) to direct opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.12 lakhs.

(iv) to pay cost of Rs.75,000/-.

The first relief is only to be allowed as already discussed in point(i). The prayer of the complainant to provide connection forthwith is refuted by opposite party contending that complainant is liable to pay the amounts demanded in Ext.A16 notice. Opposite party has demanded the following payments in Ext.A16 notice:-

1. Balance cash security deposit - Rs.1,87,218/-

2. Minimum Demand charges for not availing

   power allocation - Rs.6,52,400/-

3. Service Connection Charge - Rs.58,500/-

    

Complainant has challenged the demand of Rs.6,52,400/- as minimum charges only. Therefore he is definitely liable to pay the balance security deposit and service connection charges. We consider that opposite party has to provide connection on deposit of these charges by complainant. The claim of complainant for Rs.12 lakhs as compensation and Rs.75,000/- as cost is highly inflated. Since the minimum demand charges has been exempted we do not think that complainant is entitled to any separate compensation. The cancellation of minimum demand charges itself would be adequate relief to the complainant.

11. In the result, we partly allow this complaint and order that the demand in Ext.A16 notice for Rs.6,52,400/- as minimum demand charges is cancelled. We also order that opposite parties shall provide service connection to the complainant immediately on the complainant depositing the balance security deposit and service connection charges as stated in Ext.A16. We do not make any order as to costs. The time for compliance of this order is fixed as two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which complainant shall be entitled to cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) which shall be paid by all opposite parties jointly and severally.

Dated this 26th day of February, 2009.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A18

Ext.A1 : Power Allocation order dated, 21-11-2006 from Executive

Engineer, Electrical Division, Perintalmanna to complainant.

Ext.A2 : Photo copy of the Demand Draft, Receipts remitted as

Power Allocation charge by complainant to opposite parties.

Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the order dated, 01-12-2006 by Executive Engineer,

Electrical Division, Perintalmanna to complainant.

Ext.A4 : Photo copy of the receipt dated, 05-12-2006 from 7^th opposite party

to complainant.

Ext.A5 : Photo copy of the Completion Certificate given by 7^th opposite

party to complainant.

Ext.A6 : Photo copy of the Tax invoice for Rs.4,56,520/- dated, 12-5-2006

as price of transformer.

Ext.A7 : Photo copy of the Tax invoice for 1,03,380/- dated, 12-5-2006

as price of connected accessories of transformer.

Ext.A8 : Photo copy of the Guarantee Certificate given by Manager,

Unipower Transformers Pvt. Ltd. To complainant.

Ext.A9 : Photo copy of the Test Report dated, 24-10-2007 from Assistant

Executive Engineer(Meter), TMR Division, Shornur to complainant.

Ext.A10 : Photo copy of the receipt for Rs.200/- dated, 24-10-2007

from Unit Secretary, Palakkad District Chumat Mazdoor

Sangham to complainant.

Ext.A11 : Photo copy of the Estimate for Rs.9,171/- dated, 13-02-2008

from 7^th opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A12 : Photo copy of the Estimate for Rs.5,320/- dated, 13-02-2008

from 7^th opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A13 : Photo copy of the receipts for Rs.9,171/- and Rs.5,320/-

dated, 13-02-2008 from 7^th opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A14 : Test Report dated, 13-6-2008 from Executive Engineer,

TMR Division, Shoranur to complainant.

Ext.A15 : Photo copy of the receipt for Rs.200/- dated, 11-6-2008

from Unit Secretary, Palakkad District Chumat Mazdoor

Sangham to complainant.

Ext.A16 : Notice dated, 19-6-2008 demanding to pay minimum charges issued

by 4^th opposite party to complainant.

Ext.A17 : Photo copy of the request dated, 20-6-2008 by complainant

to 4^th opposite party.

Ext.A18 : Photo copy of the letter dated, 30-10-2008 from 4^th opposite

party to complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B7

Ext.B1 : True photo stat copy of the Power Allocation order dated, 21-11-2006

from Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Perintalmanna to complainant.

Ext.B2 : True photo stat of the Owner Certificate dated, 26-9-2007 given by

Special Grade secretary,Valancherry Grama Panchayat to complainant.

Ext.B3 : True photo stat copy of the order dated, 19-12-2007 issued by

Electrical Inspector, Malappuram to complainant.

Ext.B4 : True photo stat copy of application dated, 03-4-2008 by complainant to 7^th

opposite party

Ext.B5 : True photo stat copy of application dated, 03-4-2008 by complainant to 4^th

opposite party

Ext.B6 : True photo stat copy of bill dated, 20-3-2006 from Leo Electricals to

complainant.

Ext.B7 : True photo stat copy of notice dated, 12-5-2008 issued by 6^th opposite party

to complainant.

Sd/-

C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

MOHAMMED MUSTAFA KOOTHRADAN, Sd/-

MEMBER E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER