D.o.F:18/10/2011

D.o.O:19/3/2012

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD

                                             CC.NO.276/11

                     Dated this, the 19th     day of March 2012

PRESENT:

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ                           : PRESIDENT

SMT.P.RAMADEVI                      : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                         : MEMBER

Sundara Poojary, S/o Babu Poojary,

R/at  Adkathbail , Kasaragod Kasba  Village       : Complainant

Kasaragod

(Adv.B.Ramakrishna Bhat,Kasaragod)

1. The Secretary, KSEB, Vidyuthi Bhavan,

Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Asst. Executive Engineer, KSEB                :  Opposite parties

Electrical Sub Division , Kasaragod.

(in person)

                                                            ORDER

SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ     : PRESIDENT

  Case of the complainant in brief is as follows:

   The complaint is against the issuance of a bill for ` 3759/-  in consumer  No.16-8.  According to the complainant the building in which the said connection is provided was let out to  ESI hospital for  monthly rent and as per the rent agreement the said ESI hospital authorities was liable to pay electricity charges.  They have vacated the premises two years back.

       According to opposite parties the connection provided to consumer No.16 was under  LT  I A Tariff.  The bill `3759/-  is issued for the short assessment for the period  6/2009 to 12/2010 wherein ESI hospital was functioning  at the complainant’s  premises.  Neither the complainant nor the ESI hospital  authority had informed the opposite party  about the  occupancy or vacating  the premises by the hospital authority and as per the KSEB Tariff structure, the tariff  to be charged for ESI hospital is  LT VI A which is different from the complainant’s original tariff.  The short assessment bill was issued so as to  make good the loss occurred to the KSE Board due to application of wrong tariff according to the usage  at the  complainants premises and the complainant or the ESI hospital authority shall remit the bill in contention.

3.   Complainant filed affidavit in support of his case and  Exts.A1 to A7 marked  on his side. On the side of opposite party no documents produced. Both sides heard.  Documents perused.

4.  The only issue to be settled in this case is whether the opposite party has obtained approval from the Electricity  Regulatory Commission to revise the tariff of the complainant or not?

     The Hon’ble High Court of Kerala  in the case of Sainalabdeen vs Kerala State Electricity Board  reported in 2006(1) KLT 529 has held as follows.:-

      Section 86 of the Electricity Act, 2003 confers power on the State Commission to determine the tariff for generation, supply, transmission and wheeling of electricity, wholesale, bulk or retail, as the case may be within the State. Powers have already been conferred under Section 86(1)(f) to adjudicate upon the disputes between the licensees and generating companies and to refer any dispute for arbitration. After the coming into force of the Electricity Act, 2003 it is no longer open to the Board to unilaterally increase the tariff. Same can be done only after getting approval from the Commission. No power has been conferred on the Board under the Electricity Act, 2003 to resolve any dispute with regard to the category under which a particular group of establishments falls; either industrial or commercial.

    From the above it is very clear that after coming in to  force of the Electricity Act 2003 the KSE Board has no authority to  unilaterally increase the tariff and  it can be done only with the approval of   Electricity Regulatory Commission .  In the instant case the opposite party has no case that  for issuing short assessment bill under  a different tariff they obtained approval from the Regulatory Commission .   Hence the short assessment bill for `3759/-  dtd 1/10/2011 is not  legally sustainable.

    Therefore, we are of the  view that the demand notice dtd.1/10/11  for `3759/-   is issued without jurisdiction and hence it is not maintainable.  However it is open to the opposite parties to place the matter before the Electricity Regulatory Commission  for decision as to the category of the  building of the  complainant for the fixation of tariff and issue revised bill if approved till the decision of the Regulatory Commission complainant shall be billed only under LT VI A category .  Time for compliance is limited to 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.  The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.

Exts:

A1-to A5-electricity bills

A6&A7 -letter  and envelop issued from insurance Medical officer to complainant

MEMBER                                          MEMBER                                                          PRESIDENT

eva