PER JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          These revisions arise out of the same order of the State Commission.  Revision Petition No.2856/06 has been filed by the complainant and Revision Petition No.3208/06 has been filed by the OP. Accordingly, both the revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order.  In these revisions parties shall be referred to as the complainant and OP for the sake of convenience.

          The complainant had constructed an additional area of 6 squares in the premises belonging to him in respect of which, he had filed an application for sanction of 3 KW electricity in addition to 12 KV which was already sanctioned. The OP sanctioned 3 K.W. of electricity and charged Rs.9,277/- for additional 3 MMD as security deposit and Rs.12,000/- towards service/line development charges .  According to the complainant, the collection of the said amounts was illegal and as such, a consumer complaint was filed for refund of the said amount.

          The OP after placing reliance on Regulation 30.06 of Karnataka Electricity Regulation Commission (Electricity supply and Distribution) Code 20001-01 (hereinafter referred as KERC) urged that the charges have been levied in terms of the said provisions and that the complainant is not entitled to any refund. It was clarified that Rs.12,000/- were collected as development for 12 K.W. and additional 3 MMD was collected based upon sanctioned load or consumption per month whichever is higher.  It was also contended that the complainant was in fact liable to pay additional service/line charges for 12 K.W. @ Rs.1500/- per K.W. which is not paid by the complainant and this amount is still due.

          The District Forum had dismissed the complaint against which the complainant had filed appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission noticed that the Department itself had accepted in letter dated 13.1.2005 that it collected a sum of Rs.8,884/- towards 3 MMD on sanctioned load. The State Commission, therefore, held that OP itself had admitted that it had collected an excess amount of Rs.8,884/- towards 3 MMD which the OP was liable to refund to complainant.  In respect of charges of Rs.12,000/-, the State Commission after referring to Regulation 30.06 of the KERC held that the said Regulation apply where additional load was required for additional connection and it is in this contingency that the OP can calculate the total capacity of the electricity supply.  However, in the instance case the complainant had put an additional construction in the same premises; all the five-service connections provided to the different floors of the same building are separate and independent since separate RR numbers are given and the application for supply of electricity to the additional constructed area was for supply of electricity independently and as such, the complainant had not sought for sanction of additional load to the existing connection.  Accordingly, the collection of service charges from the complainant under the said Regulation in respect of additional portion is not correct and it is liable to be refunded.  On the basis of the above findings, the State Commission held that the OP is liable to refund the said amounts of Rs.12,000/- and Rs.8,884/- to the complainant and also directed the OP to adjust the said amount to the future bills payable by the complainant in respect of the five installations. This order has been challenged by both the parties in revision.

          We have heard Counsel appearing on both sides.  Counsel appearing for the complainant has submitted before us that the sum of Rs.12,000/- and Rs.8,884/- should have been ordered to be refunded to the complainant and the directions to adjust the said amounts for future bills are required to be set aside.  In the alternative it is argued that till the adjustment of the said amounts is made, interest on the said amounts be paid to the complainant. 

          On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the OP submitted that the OP is justified in levying the charges to the tune of Rs.12,000/- in view of Regulation 30.06 of KERC.  He has further submitted that in fact the complainant was required to pay charges @ Rs.1500/- per K.W. for existing 12 K.W., but the OP has charged only Rs.12,000/- for the same.  Upon enquiry from the Ld. Counsel for the OP it was clarified that no affidavit regarding any additional cost incurred by OP towards service line has been filed.

          Regulation 30.06 upon which reliance is placed by the OP reads as under:

30.06:  COST TOWARDS SERVICE LINE FROM LT APPLICANTS (Applicable for Section 5.00 & 7.00)

           Added by Amendment dated. 29^th Nov. 2001: -   The cost towards service line shall not be levied where the applicant executes the service line work at his cost as per Licensee’s estimate and specifications.

          Old Version: - Nil

In addition to the above charges, an additional amount of Rs.1000/- per KW for the loads above 3 KW shall be collected in Bangalore (Corporation, B.D.A.,) (B.M.R.D.A. deleted by Amendment) area towards HT / LT U.G. cable system.

Note: Amended Version dated.16^th January 2003: Where additional loads are requisitioned for existing connections, the cost towards service line for the total load (existing  + additional load) may be calculated according to the above table at appropriate slab rate and deduction allowed for any cost towards service line paid previously.

However, the additional cost towards service line of Rs.1000/ per KW applicable for Bangalore (Corporation, B.D.A.,) area towards HT / LT U.G. cable system shall be collected both in case of new and   existing buildings.

Amended Version dated 29^th November 2001: - Where additional loads are requisitioned for existing connections, the cost towards service line for the total load (existing  + additional load) may be calculated according to the above table at appropriate slab rate and deduction allowed for any cost towards service line paid previously.

However, the additional cost towards service line of Rs.1000/ per KW applicable for Bangalore urban area need not be collected in case of existing buildings.

          Ld. Counsel for the OP has placed before us the amended version dated 12.1.2006, which is applicable to load less than 25 KW in respect of domestic, commercial and mixed load installations and she has drawn our attention to Clause ‘e’ which reads as under:

“e) Where additional loads are requisitioned for existing installations, the cost towards electric line/plant shall be collected for the additional load only of the appropriate slab rate. The slab rate shall be arrived of based on the total load (existing + additional load)”.

          The amended version dated 16.1.2003 provides for calculation of cost towards service line in cases of existing installations for the total load “existing + additional load” at the appropriate slab rate. Deduction is allowed for any cost towards service line provided previously in cases where additional load is sanctioned for existing connections.  The State Commission found that the complainant had not sought for additional load for existing connection, but had sought an independent connection for the newly constructed portion and there were four existing connections in the same building.  The Regulation further provides cost towards service line of Rs.1000/- per K.W. shall be collected both in new and existing buildings.  However, the amended version dated 29.1.2001 had contemplated that additional cost towards service line of Rs.1000/- per K.W. applicable to Bangalore Urban Area need not be collected in case of existing buildings.  The amended version dated 12.1.2006 shows that where additional loads are requisitioned for existing connections, the cost towards electricity line for the additional load only at the appropriate slab rate and the slab rate shall be arrived at based upon table load (existing + additional load).  Thus, KERC has been frequently changing the charges in connection with the additional load for existing connections from time to time.  These Regulations provide for cost towards service line and amended version dated 16.1.2003, which provides for deduction of cost towards service line paid previously.  It appears that no evidence was filed before the Fora below as to the position of payment of cost towards service line, which already existed.  Ld. Counsel for the OP has stated that no affidavit was filed in relation to the additional cost, if any, incurred by the KERC while sanctioning additional load.  In fact, the amendment dated 29.11.2001 provides that cost towards service line shall not be levied where the applicant executes the service line work at his cost as per Licensee’s estimate and specifications.  At any rate there is nothing to show that any extra cost was incurred by the OP to service line for providing additional load/new connection sought by the complainant.

In this background, we are of the view that the OP was not entitled to collect Rs.12,000/- towards 12 KW service line which already existed and could charge only for 3 KW for which separate sum of Rs.3300/- was admittedly paid by the complainant.

          In so far as the payment of Rs.8,884/- towards 3 MMD on sanctioned load is concerned, the collection sheet filed along with affidavit by Shri T.S. Shivram, Asstt. Executive Engineer of BESCOM, which is on the record of R.P. No.2856/06 shows that additional 3 MMD was collected, based on the sanctioned load instead of consumption.  However, the excess 3 MMD collections will be adjusted against the future bills after obtaining approval of the competent authority. The State Commission has referred to letter dated 13.1.2005 wherein it has been admitted that the excess amount of Rs.8,884/- has been collected towards 3 MMD.  Therefore, the complainant would be entitled to refund of the said amount. 

In view of the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the State Commission directing refund/directions relating to adjustment of the same in future bills except that the complainant would be entitled to interest on the said amounts from the date of payment till the same are adjusted. The revision petition filed by the complainant is partly allowed in aforesaid terms and we do not find any merit in the revision filed by the OP, which is hereby dismissed.   In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.