KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 411/2023

JUDGMENT DATED: 01.08.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 240/2022 of CDRC, Alappuzha)

PRESENT:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN     : PRESIDENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A                                              : MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANT:

Natarajan, S/o Kochupilai, Peedikachirayil, Kandalloor South P.O., Alappuzha-690 535.

(By Advs. Jose Y. James & Ashraf A.)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., Electrical Sub Division, Kayamkulam-690 502.

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER    

This is an appeal filed by the complainant in C.C. No. 240 of 2022 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha (referred as District Commission for short) against the order dated 20.04.2023 dismissing the complaint.

2.  The case of the complainant in short is that he had availed electricity connection for his shop under LTV1B tariff.  On 04.02.2022 the concerned Officers of the opposite party inspected the promises and informed the complainant that the tariff applicable was LT 1A instead of LT V1B claimed and thereby the opposite party had suffered a loss of Rs. 33,073/-. The complainant filed appeal on 16.08.2022.  As per the request of the opposite party the complainant submitted bills as per LT V1 (B) tariff on 30.08.2022 and the opposite party informed that intimation will be issued to the complainant later.  On 13.09.2022 an intimation was received by the complainant stating that up to 06.05.2013 his tariff was LTV1 (B), from 05.07.2013 LTV1 (F) and thereafter the Tariff was LT 1 (A).  The complainant alleged unfair trade practice against the opposite party.

3.  The opposite party filed version that the complaint was not maintainable as the relief was in respect of an order passed under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act. The complainant had availed an electric connection on 15.05.2004 for the functioning of a private hospital with assigned tariff LT V1B.  As per the records the tariff changed to LT VI F on 06.05.2013 and later to LT 1A.  The change of tariff was only for 3 months and later changed to LT 1 A as requested by the complainant.  On inspection they found that rooms were rented out for running a fertilizer shop godown, a Provision Store and an Electronics shop. The shop rooms are to be billed in LTVII A Tariff.  But the consumption was being billed in subsidized LT domestic tariff.  A provisional assessment was made on 04.08.2022 for a period of 12 months preceding the date of inspection and given to the complainant.  Later the assessment was made final as per the proceeding dated 13.09.2022.  Electric connection was provided on 05.07.2013 for domestic purpose.  But the complainant had misused the tariff by leasing out the rooms for commercial establishments. The theft Squad had inspected the premises of the complainant and detected the misuse of tariff.  The complainant had approached the Appellate Forum challenging the assessment made consequent to the detection of unauthorized use of electricity.  The opposite party would seek for dismissal of the complaint.

4.  The oral evidence consists of the testimony of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A10 on the side of the complainant. The respondent examined RWs 1&2 and marked Exts. B1 to B6.

5.  The District Commission had dismissed the complaint on the reason that no consumer dispute would arise on a demand made by the officers of the KSEB on detection of theft in use of electricity as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act.

6.  Perused the appeal memorandum.  It is contended that the District Commission went wrong in dismissing the complaint.  The opposite parties had unilaterally changed the tariff which amounts to deficiency of service.

7.  Heard the Counsel for the appellant, perused the Memorandum of appeal and the Order of the District Commission. The Apex Court, in a ruling reported in 2013 3 KLT short notes 29 in UP Power Corporation Limited Vs Anish Ahmad has declared that a complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum against the assessment made by the officers under Section 126 or Section 135 to 140 of the Electricity Act. Our  Hon’ble High Court in a ruling reported in 2016 (3) KLT 953 in KSEB Limited and another Vs VSRDC and others has taken a view that the Consumer Commissions have no jurisdiction in electricity theft or unauthorized use of electricity matters. In view of the above judicial interpretations it is crystal clear that the Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute which arose on a demand under Section 126 of the Electricity Act.  So there is no purpose in admitting the appeal.  The order of the District Commission is strictly in consonance with the legal position as settled by the Supreme Court.  Therefore we are not inclined to admit the appeal.  

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

The appellant is permitted to receive back the statutory deposit on proper acknowledgement since his appeal is not admitted.

JUSTICE K. SURENDRA MOHAN  : PRESIDENT

                                    AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                                             BEENA KUMARY. A         : MEMBER

                                                                                                RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb