KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.754/2016

JUDGEMENT DATED: 31.10.2022

(Against the Order in C.C.No.246/2012 of CDRF, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

APPELLANTS:

(by Adv. G. Gigimol)

Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

JUDGEMENT

HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI. K. SURENDRA MOHAN : PRESIDENT

          The complainants in C.C.No.246/2012 are before us in appeal aggrieved by an order dated 29.09.2016 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) dismissing the complaint filed by them.  They had filed the complaint challenging the action of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) and its officers in issuing electricity bills for huge amounts.  According to them, the opposite parties were nursing a grudge against them for having challenged their bills before this Commission.  However, the District Commission dismissed their complaint, as per the order appealed against.  The opposite parties in the complaint are the respondents herein.

          2.       The appellants are two societies registered under the Charitable Societies Act.  Both the societies are represented by the same person.  The societies have two electric connections, consumer no.8572 and 7764.  According to them they were remitting payments to the bills that were being issued regularly to them on the basis of their metre readings.  In 2009 they were issued with a penal bill for Rs.26,180/-(Rupees Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred and Eighty) in respect of the 2^nd appellant society.  However it was cancelled by the State Commission in appeal No.285/2011.  At the time of admitting the appeal, an amount of Rs.13,090/-(Rupees Thirteen Thousand and Ninety) had been remitted by the complainants being fifty percent of the bill amount.  However, without giving credit for the said amount a fresh bill was issued for Rs.26,180/-/-(Rupees Twenty Six Thousand One Hundred and Eighty).

          3.       While so, on 13.06.2012 an inspection was conducted by the APTS on the premises with consumer No.8592 and alleging misuse of energy, a bill for Rs.62,051.95/-/-(Rupees Sixty Two Thousand Fifty One and Ninety Five paise) was issued.  But the said bill was cancelled in appeal.  Later, a provisional bill for Rs.80,377/-(Rupees Eighty Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Seven) was issued for misuse of tariff for the period from 09.05.2011 to 03/2012.  The bills were challenged by the appellants alleging that they amounted to deficiency in service.

          4.       The complaint was contested by the respondents, filing their version.  They pointed out that, the two bills in dispute were issued to two different societies.  Therefore the complaint was not maintainable according to them.  The tariff of consumer no.7764 is VI/B and the permitted connected load is 4KW.  As per Clause 26 of the KSEB Terms and Conditions of Supply code, 2005 prior permission is necessary for using excess connected load.  If excess connected load is used without permission, the conduct is liable for assessment under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, 2003.  The APTS inspected the premises having consumer No.8592 on 22.02.2009 and detected unauthorizedconnected load.  So as per Section 126 a penal bill for Rs.27,098/- (Rupees Twenty Seven Thousand and Ninety Eight) was issued on 22.09.2009.  The same was challenged before the District Commission in C.C.No.340/2009.  An amount of Rs.12,959/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Nine Hundred and Fifty Nine) was remitted as per the order of the  District Commission.  Later on, the complaint was dismissed.  The said order was challenged before this Commission by the appellant.  This Commission found that the appellant was bound to remit Rs.9,625/-(Rupees Nine Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty Five).

          5.       According to the respondents, there was an agricultural nursery in the premises of consumer no.8592.  On 10.01.2012 when an inspection was conducted it was detected that the appellant had used electrical energy for the agricultural nursery.  So as per Section 126 an assessment was conducted and a bill for Rs.80,377/- was issued.  Since the bills were issued under Section 126 of the Electricity Act, the respondents contended that the proper remedy was to file an appeal under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 

          6.       Heard.  We have considered the contentions advanced before us anxiously.  A perusal of the bill that is under challenge in these proceedings shows that it has been issued under Section 126 of the Electricity Act.  Therefore, the proper remedy for the appellants is to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the said Act.  As rightly contended on behalf of the respondents, the Supreme Court has in UP Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ahmed Anis (2013)8 SCC 491 laid down that a complaint against an assessment made by an Assessing Officer under Section 126 or for offenses committed under Sections 135 to 145 of the Electricity Act is not maintainable before a Consumer Fora.  In view of the above binding dicta, the proper remedy of the appellants is to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority.

          7.       The above being the legal position, the Consumer Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint filed by the appellants.  Since the proper remedy of the appellants is to file an appeal under Section 126 of the Electricity Act before the Appellate Authority, we grant liberty to the appellant to pursue the said remedy.  Therefore, while dismissing this appeal, it is held that the appellant shall be at liberty to challenge the disputed bills before the Appellate Authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 at Ernakulam.

          This appeal is dismissed with the above observation. No costs.

SL