Kerala

Idukki

CC/49/2020

Julin k - Complainant(s)

Versus

KSEB Board - Opp.Party(s)

23 Nov 2021

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :28/02/2020

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, IDUKKI

Dated this the 23^rd day of November 2021

Present :

SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT.ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI.AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.49/2020

Between

Complainant : Julin K.Ostin,

Chirackal,

Parathodu, Idukki P.O., 685 571.

And

Opposite Parties : 1 . The Assistant Executive Engineer,

KSEB Electrical Sub Division,

Chithirapuram – 685 561.

2 . The Assistant Engineer,

KSEB Electrical Section,

Kambilikandam – 685 571.

3 . The Secretary,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vydhuthi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.

 

O R D E R

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

Allegations of the complainant are as follows.

 

1 . Complainant had started home stay in 2 rooms situated in the first floor of her new house and obtained electricity connection with Consumer No.1157100010704 LT IA. She along with her family is residing in the same building.

 

2 . Even though KSEB's Anti Power Theft Squad of Idukki conducted inspection in the house on 21/10/2019, no defect was noticed by them. On 17/12/2019 KSEB's Anti Power Theft Squad of Kalpetta again conducted inspection in the house and informed her that since no classification letter issued

 

 

(Cont.....2)

-2-

by Tourism Department, Govt. of Kerala was produced, electric connection cannot be used under domestic category. Accordingly an additional bill for Rs.35273/- was received from KSEB's Chithirapuram electrical division.

 

3 . At the time of starting homestay, Assistant Engineer of KSEB had inspected the premises, and stated that if the owner of building resides there, domestic connection was sufficient. Meter reader or any other officials had not pointed out any defects till now. She had taken licences from various government departments for the functioning of homestay.

 

4 . Against the provisional additional bill issued by opposite parties, she filed application and after hearing and production of documents on 24/01/2020, first opposite party had reduced the bill amount to Rs.20049/-. As per this order, connected load was refixed at 3558 W and after reducing the load 2714W for domestic use, balance would be 884 W only. Opposite parties had calculated the amount for the whole period of one year at twice the rate. But homestay had functioned for 70 days only. She is ready to remit applicable amount of Rs.3627/-. Earlier bills were paid in right time.

 

5 . She had already applied for classification certificate from the Tourism Department. By obtaining the above certificate, entire connection would be at domestic rate.

So she prayed for setting aside the assessment order No.DB-33/2019-20/AEE/ESD/465 dated 29/01/2020 and to issue direction to first opposite party to refix the amount of bill based on actual use of electricity.

 

Opposite parties entered appearance. On 28/10/2021, complainant's husband present and produced authorisation. Opposite parties's counsel raised objection with regard to maintainability and posted for hearing on 05/11/2021. Complainant was absent on that day and no representation or filed application. Upon verification it is seen that no Vakalath has been filed for opposite parties. No written version is seen filed either. However submissions that case is not maintainable as per decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court is to be looked into. Judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5466/2012 dated 01/07/2013 in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.& Ors Vs. Anis Ahmad, applies according to counsel.

 

(Cont.....3)

-3-

We have examined the allegations of complainant and the objection raised by opposite parties with regard to maintainability of complaint before this Commission.

 

Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., & Ors Vs Anis Ahmad (Civil Appeal No.5466/2012 arising out of SLP (C ) No.35906/2011) has held that complaint against assessment made U/s126 of the Electricity Act, 2003 is not maintainable before Consumer Fora. We have gone through the above Judgement and found that submission of counsel is well founded. The complainant has not alleged any deficiency in service, unfair trade practice or restrictive trade practice on the part of opposite parties, other than excessive billing U/s 126 of the Act.

 

In the light of above judgement, we find that the present complaint filed is not maintainable before this Commission.

 

In the result, the complaint is dismissed however, without order as to costs.

 

This order would not preclude the complainant to seek appropriate legal remedy provided under other laws.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 23^rd day of November, 2021.

 

 

Sd/-

SRI.AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI.C.SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

 

APPENDIX

 

Nil

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT

 

 

 

 

**************************************************