Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/421

SEBASTIAN JOSEPH - Complainant(s)

Versus

SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

D.R RAJESH

23 Jun 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

APPEAL NO.421/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 23/06/2015

 (Appeal filed against the order in CC No.195/2012 on the file of CDRF, Kottayam dated, 22/08/2014)

 

 

PRESENT:

 

SMT. A. RADHA                            :         MEMBER

SHRI. K. CHANDRADAS NADAR :        JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS    :        MEMBER

 

APPELLANT:

 

Sebastian Joseph, Narikunnel House,

Kanakkary P.O., Kanakkary, Kottayam District.

 

(By Adv:  D.R. Rajesh)                    

 

                   Vs

 

RESPONDENTS:

 

1. Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,

Thiruvananthapuram-695 004.

 

2. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section,

Etttumanoor P.O., Kottayam.

 

(By Adv: B. Sakthidharan Nair)                    

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

SMT. A. RADHA  :  MEMBER

 

        Dis-satisfied by the order of dismissal passed by the CDRF, Kottayam in I.A.No.148/2014 in CC.No.195/12 the complainant came up in appeal.

        2.  It is the case of the complainant that he was conducting a business concern by name Narikunnel Bankers for his livelihood.  It is asserted in the complaint that though the term bank appears in the name of the concern no banking business was conducting by the complainant related to the Bank business. The appellant’s concern is having registration under the Kerala Agriculture Income-tax and Sales-tax Rules wherein the Rules applicable to commercial establishments and the activity is under Money Lenders Act.  No banking licence or any permission from the Reserve Bank of India is applicable to this Bank.  The complainant was a consumer of the opposite party under LT-VII(A) which is applicable to commercial establishments registered under Sales-tax Rules.  The authorized connected load is        6000W whereas the appellant was using only 1650W.  On 12/03/2012 an inspection was conducted by the APTS of the opposite party and a provisional bill was issued to the complainant alleging that the complainant was conducting a bank and tariff applicable to banks is under LT-VI(C) under section 126 of the Electricity Act and an amount of Rs.35,670/- towards penal charges had to be paid by the complainant.  The complaint is filed to withdraw the bill and alleges deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and sought for compensation and also to cancel the bill. 

3.  In the version filed by the opposite parties it is contented that the complainant was using the electric connection  un-authorisedly.  As per Electricity Act 2003 the cases initiated under Section 126 is to be appealed under Section 127 of the Electricity Act wherein the consumer has to remit 50% of the assessed amount.  The complainant being the consumer of the opposite party the relation between the licensee is governed by the agreement between the parties at the time of effecting the service connection and the rules and regulations thereon.  The remedy is open to the consumer is with an Assessing Officer who is the appellate authority to entertain the complaints against the assessment made under Section 126(3) of the Electricity Act.  Hence the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  It is contented that the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) on inspection found out that the electricity supply given to the complainant’s premises was under LT-VII(A) category.  The 1^st floor of the building is used for running a Bank in the name ‘Narikunnel Bank’ and office of Narikunnel Agencies.  The ground floor of the premises was used as go down of M/s. Narikunnel Agencies  for running electronic repairing shop.  Being a banking firm the tariff applicable to Narikunnel Bank is “LT-VI(C)”, the tariff rate of which is higher than LT-VII(A).  The use of electrical energy for a purpose other than for which usage is authorized is having higher tariff is attracted the assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and the complainant is not entitled for any relief.  Though affidavit was filed by the complainant, the opposite parties raised the question of maintainability before the Forum Below and the Forum Below dismissed the complaint as the complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.  This was challenged in appeal by the complainant. 

4. It is argued by the counsel for the appellant/ complainant that the complainant is conducting the ‘Narikunnel Bankers’ which does not come under the Rules and Regulations of Reserve Bank of India.  The complainant’s establishment is only commercial and comes under LT-VII(A) tariff and the tariff under LT-VI(C) is not at all applicable to the appellant’s establishment.  Though the connected load is 6000W the appellant is using only 1660W the assessment made by the APTS is without considering the fact that the complainant’s business is merely commercial in nature.  The counsel for the appellant prayed for a remand of the case to contest on merits before the Forum Below in order to establish that the appellant is conducting banking business which is having registration under Kerala Agriculture Income-tax and Sales-tax Rules wherein the tariff applicable is under commercial purpose and comes LT-VII(A) tariff only.

        5.  The counsel for the respondent strongly opposed the arguments raised by the appellant on the ground that the tariff specifications under the Electricity Act included the banking business under LT-VI (C) and not LT-VII(A).  The tariff under LT VI(C) is applicable to “offices or institutions unfer Income Tax or Central Excise and Customs Departments, offices under Motor Vehicles Department or Sales Tax department or Excise Department, offices of all other tax earning departments under State or Central Government (other than Local Self Government Institutions), Offices of Department of Posts excluding post offices and ED post offices, light houses, pawn brokers, banking and/or financing institutions (excluding micro financing institutions registered and functioning as per the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India), ATM counters, offices of Railways including railway stations, offices of Airport Authority of India except airport, offices of Sub-Registrars and any other LT categories not included in this schedule”. The counsel also pointed out that the Consumer Forum lacks jurisdiction to fix the tariff and it is exclusively the powers of the licensing authority.  Hence there does not arise the question of remand to contest the case before the District forum.  The District Forum rightly observed that the complaint is not maintainable and dismissed the case.

        6.  We have heard both sides in detail.  We find that the tariff specification envisaged under the Electricity Act is highly relevant in this case.  Hence there does not arise the scope for a remand.  The fixing of tariff is exclusively within the power of licensing authority.  We are of the considered view that schedule of tariff specification published by Government of Kerala is highly relevant and there does not arise the question of contesting the case again by adducing evidence before the Forum Below.

        In the result, appeal is dismissed and we uphold the order passed by the Forum Below.

The office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Forum Below along with LCR.

  

 

A. RADHA           :        MEMBER

 

 K. CHANDRADAS NADAR :  JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS     :        MEMBER

Sa.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE CONSUMER

                                                                  DISPUTES REDRESSAL

                                                           COMMISSION

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPEAL NO.421/2014

JUDGMENT DATED 23/06/2015

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sa.