Kerala

Idukki

CC/38/2021

Babu Sebastian - Complainant(s)

Versus

KSEB - Opp.Party(s)

17 Feb 2022

ORDER

DATE OF FILING :18.2.2021

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IDUKKI

Dated this the 17^th day of February, 2022

Present :

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR PRESIDENT

SMT. ASAMOL P. MEMBER

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.38/2021

Between

Complainant : Babu Sebastain,

Spice Mount Resort,

Parakkadavu, Kattappana, Idukki.

(By Adv: Prince Joseph)

And

Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretay,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattam,

Thiruvananthapuram – 695 004.

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Electrical Sub Division, Kattappana,

Kattappana P.O., Pin – 685 508.

3. The Executive Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Electrical Sub Division, Kattappana,

Kattappana P.O., Pin – 685 508.

(All by Adv: Lissy M.M.)

O R D E R

SMT. ASAMOL. P., MEMBER

Complainant’s case is briefly as follows :-

1. Complainant is a consumer having 3 phase electric connection under 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. This connection was originally given for domestic purpose and after purchasing the property, complainant with an intention to alter the building as a (cont….2)

- 2 -

resort, applied to opposite party for construction work and opposite parties provided the connection under LT 6F. Complainant has paid the bills without any default till December 2020.

2. Complainant started the construction work in 2018. But, afterwards, due to Covid-19 pandemic disease, government declared lockdown. So complainant could not complete the work. After lifting of lockdown, complainant had again commenced construction work of the building. But after completing the work, completion certificate was not issued by the Authority.

3. On 10.12.2020, APTS conducted a surprise inspection of the building and they found no violations except that complainant did not change the tariff in spite of completion of the work. In fact, the construction is not completed even now. Complainant had convinced the inspection team about the situation. But, 2^nd opposite party issued a bill of Rs.1,21,904/- to complainant. The reason stated in the bill is that the complainant had used the power under LT 6F tariff and he has to change the same to LT 7A also.

4. Complainant preferred an appeal against the bill. But, Assistant Executive Engineer turned down the appeal. Hence this complaint.

5. Complainant has not violated any provisions of Electricity Act as alleged by opposite parties. He had used the power connection for the purpose of agriculture and never used the power for any other purpose. Also, complainant never added any load to the existing connected load. As per Section 153(4) of the Electricity Supply Code in case of consumers other than domestic, additional connected load is 101% or below of the total connected load that need not be consider as unauthorized connected load. Hence the findings of APTS and acts of Assistant Executive Engineer without considering the above said facts is gross deficiency in service. The issuance of such a huge bill in violation of Supply Code is also gross deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence complainant is entitled to get the bill cancelled.

6. Notice served from this Commission. Upon notice, opposite parties have entered appearance and filed a petition challenging the maintainability of this case. Petition averments in brief are as given under : (cont…3)

- 3 -

7. Anti Power Theft Squad of KSEB conducted a surprise inspection in the premises having consumer No.11562944003825 which is mentioned in the complaint on 10.12.2020. Smt. Ammini Gopi, Elevantikal, Kattappana is the consumer of this electric connection. At the time of inspection, the APTS found unauthorized use for the functioning of a tourist resort with the name and style M/s. Spice Mount Resorts and Live Food and assessed the liability of Rs.1,21,904/- against the consumer. As per Section 126 of Indian Electricity Act, “the usage of electricity for the purpose other than the usage authorized” comes under the misuse of electricity. As per Section 145 of Indian Electricity Act 2003, “No Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter which an assessing officer referred to in Section 126 or an appellate authority referred in Section 127 or adjudicating officer appointed under this Act is empowered by or under this Act to determine and no injunction shall be granted by any Court or other authority in respect of any action taken in pursuance of any power conferred by or under this Act”. Therefore, the maintainability of this complaint may be taken as preliminary issue and the complaint may be dismissed on this ground.

8. Hence, it was posted for hearing on the maintainability issue. Opposite party has produced proceedings of assessing officer with respect to the inspection, provisional assessment bill and site mahazar. We have heard the counsels for both parties.

9. We have perused the records which were produced by both parties. It is found that the alleged bill in this complaint is with related to the inspection conducted by APTS. As per Section 126 of Electricity Act 2003, usage of electricity for the purpose other than for which the usage was authorized can be treated as unauthorized use of electricity. The APTS has conducted the inspection on 10.12.2020 of alleged premises and issued assessment bill for unauthorized use of electricity. According to opposite party, since the allegation in this complaint are regarding assessment bill with respect to unauthorized use of electricity as per Section 126 of the Electricity Act, it cannot be considered by this Commission. There is a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and others Vs. Anis Ahmad on 1 July, 2013 on this point. As per this decision, complaint against assessment under Section 126 is not maintainable before Consumer Forums. (cont….4)

- 4 -

Therefore, we find that this complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 17^th day of February, 2022

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., MEMBER

Sd/-

SRI. C. SURESHKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

 

Appendix : Nil.

 

 

Forwarded by Order,

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT