- 1 -

Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum

Kerala State Electricity Board - Southern Region,

Vydyuthi Bhavanam, Kottarakkara ______________________________________________________________________

No: CGRF/KTR/ OP.No.1144/2014/3118 Date: 30.6.2014.

____________________________________________________________

From

Chairperson To

The Assistant Executive Engineer Electrical Sub Division,

Karunagappally (South).

Sub: - Releasing of order of disposal of OP.No.1144/2014.

Ref: - B.O (FB) No.585/2006 (LA.II/1173/2006) dated 25.2.2006.

Sir,

Enclosed please find the order of disposal of petition filed by Smt.

I.Rajalekshmi, in OP.No.1144/2014 for further action.

Yours faithfully,

CHAIRPERSON

DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CGRF (SOUTH)

Copy to:-

1. Smt.I.Rajalekshmi,Kalathil House,Arinalloor P.O.,

Thevalakkara, Kollam. 2. The Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Kollam.

3. The Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Karunagappally. ____________________________________________________________

Office: CGRF(S), Vydyuthi Bhavanam, Kottarakkara, Pin – 691 506

Web site: cgrf.kseb.in E- mail: cgrfktr@ksebnet.com, Phone: 0474 – 2451300

- 2 -

CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM (SOUTH),

KOTTARAKKARA

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Present: 1. Smt. Jalaja.T.,Deputy Chief Engineer, Chairperson, 2. Smt. S. Presannakumari, Executive Engineer, Member II

3. Sri.N.Sasidharan Unnithan, Member III

Monday the 5th day of April 2014

OP No.1144/2014

Between

Petitioner: Smt. I. Rajalekshmi, Kalathil House,

Arinalloor P.O.,

Thevalakkara, Kollam.

And

Respondent: The Assistant Executive Engineer

Electrical Sub Division, Karunagappally (South).

ORDER

1. The petitioner is a consumer under Electrical Section,

Karunagappally (South), and the Assistant Engineer issued a

demand under LT VIII tariff amounting to Rs.2,49,600/- to the

building Sreerangam Tower, with Consumer No.26423. On

16/11/2012, the RAO Kollam with Sub Engineer, Electrical

Section, Karunagappally (S), inspected the premises and

prepared a site mahassar, for 8kW load, at the rate of Rs.65/-

per kW for 240 days under LT VIII tariff and issued a bill.

Objection was filed and without considering the documents,

finalized the bill for Rs.1,49,890/-. Aggrieved consumer filed

appeal before the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle,

Kottarkkara under Section 127 and the appellate authority

- 3 -

confirmed the final bill for Rs.1,49,890/-, without considering

any relevant facts put forth by the consumer. Hence it is prayed

i) To declare the final bill, appeal order and the

demand cum disconnection notice as illegal and

hence to set aside.

ii) To direct the Assistant Engineer to issue separate

fresh bills for the actual period of unauthorized use

of electricity.

iii) To issue orders to the Assistant Engineer to limit the

bill for the period from the date of occupation of the

firms, in the building.

iv) To issue orders to refund Rs.74,945/- with interest

at twice the bank rate wef 23/1/2013.

v) To pay the cost and expenses of the petition.

2. The petitioner also filed petition to stay all further proceedings

and requested not to disconnect the supply till the disposal of the

case. As such an interim order was issued on 25/2/2014.

Considering the facts such as they have remitted 50% of the

assessed amount with relevant fees. Also they have regularly

paid the current charge based on the issued bill regularly, not to

disconnect the supply till the disposal of the case.

3. The opposite party Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub

Division, Karunagappally (South), was informed about the

complaint on 25/2/2014 and the statement of facts was filed.

According to the opposite party, the Sub Engineer of Electrical

Section, Karungappally South along with officers of Regional

Audit office, Kollam conducted an inspection in the premises of

the complainant on 16/11/2012. It was found unauthorized

extension of electricity from the Consumer No.26423 to 3 shops

in the building. A site mahassar was prepared by the Sub

- 4 -

Engineer of Electrical Section, Karunagappally (South) along with

officers of Regional Audit office, Kollam and acknowledged by the

building Manager Sri. Rajan. There was unauthorized extension

of supply to (1) CPAA Cashews (164 watts), (2) Twinkle Beauty

Parlour (3540 watts) (3) Beau Ideal Gents Beauty Parlour (3641

watts). A provisional assessment order were prepared as per

Section 126 of Indian Electricity Act 2003 for Rs.2,49,600.- under

temporary Extension (LT VIII) and issued to the consumers with

Consumer No.26423 on 26/11/2012 by the Assistant Engineer,

Electrical Section, Karunagappally South. The petitioner had filed

an objection to the Assistant Engineer, the Assessing officer.

4. The complainant remitted Rs.74,945/- as 50% assessed amount

and a processing fee of Rs.2000/- and application fee Rs.50/- and

appealed before the Appellate authority on 21/1/2013. Hearing

was conducted by the Appellate authority on 19/12/2013 and

confirmed the final bill issued by the Assessing officer, for

Rs.1,49,890/- on 10/1/2014. The Assistant Engineer, issued

notice to the consumer to remit the balance amount vide letter

dated 10/1/2014.

Rs.50/- was collected as application fee by mistake, and after

realizing Rs.10/- as application fee, the balance amount shall be

refunded. The tariff applicable to temporary extension is LT VIII

and it is not necessary to issue any fresh bill for the amount

recoverable, as the bill in force was in dispute which was

confirmed by the appellate authority, and the petitioner is liable

to remit the balance amount. Meanwhile the complainant had

applied for separate service connections and those connection

with Consumer No.30871, 30872 & 30873 are effected.

5. Both the parties were present for the hearing. The petitioner was

represented Sri. K. Anandakuttan Nair and the opposite party by

- 5 -

Sri. Abdul Salam, Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub

Division, Karunagappally South. They were heard elaborately.

6. During hearing the counsel of the opposite party raised a serious

objection regarding the maintainability of the complaint before

this forum for want of jurisdiction, since the impugned bill is an

assessment for unauthorized use of electricity, the adjudication of

which is excluded from the jurisdiction of the CGRF.

7. The petitioner on the other hand argued that, what is excluded

from jurisdiction is the complaint against the proceedings

initiated for the unauthorized use of electricity as provided under

Section 126 of the Act. According to him the impugned bill is not

the product of any proceedings initiated as provided under

Section 126 of the Act, and the proceedings are vitiated by

serious procedural irregularities and therefore the impugned bill

causing grievance to the petitioner is because of the ‘deficiency’

on the part of the licensee, for which the CGRF has jurisdiction.

8. This forum scrupulously examined the documents available on

file and also considered the contentions and rival contentions

raised by the parties. The unauthorized use of electricity made

by the petitioner is not denied by the petitioner either in her

petition or during hearing. As such this forum does not enter

into the merits or demerits of the case.

9. If the bill raised under section 126 based on allegation and

unauthorized use of power falls within the exception clause

2(f) (v)of the Regulations, then certainly, the CGRF does not

have the authority and the petitioner’s remedy is only to file

an appeal before the statutory authority under 127 of the Act.

- 6 -

In order to examine the matter the relevant statutory

provisions are reproduced hereunder.

Section 126 of the Act, Assessment (1) If on an

inspection any place or premises or after inspection of the

equipments, gadgets, machines, devices found connected or

used, or after inspection of records maintained by any person,

the assessing officer comes to the conclusion that such person

is indulging unauthorized use of electricity, he shall

provisionally assess to the best of his judgment the electricity

charges payable by such person or by any other person

benefited by such use.

Explanation:- For the purposes of this section.

(a) “ assessing officer” means an officer of a State Government of

Board or licensee , as the case may be, designated as such by

the State Government;

(b) “unauthorized use of electricity” means the usage of electricity –

(i) by any artificial means; or

(ii) by a means not authorized by the concerned person or authority

or licensee, or

(iii) through a tampered meter; or

(iv) for the purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was

authorized; or

(v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the

supply of electricity was authorized.

10. Clause 2 (f) of the Regulations:-

2(f) 'Complaint' means any grievance made by a complainant in

writing on:

(i) defect or deficiency in electricity service provided by the

licensee;

(ii) unfair or restrictive trade practices of licensee in providing

electricity services;

(iii) charging of a price in excess of the price fixed by the

- 7 -

Commission for supply of electricity and allied services;

(iv) errors in billing;

(v) erroneous disconnection of supply;

(vi) electricity services which are unsafe or hazardous to public

life in contravention of the provisions of any law or rule in

force; or

(vii) any other grievance connected with the supply of

electricity by the licensee except those related to the

following:

(1) unauthorized use of electricity as provided under

Section 126 of the Act;

(2) offences and penalties as provided under Sections

135 to 139 of the Act and

(3) accident in the distribution, supply or use of

electricity under Section 161 of the Act.

11. Grievance connected with the unauthorized use of

electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 is

specifically excluded from the definition of complaint.

12. Here the first question raised is whether the CGRF

jurisdiction to decide on any dispute pertaining to bills

raised under Section 126 of the Act on allegation of

unauthorized use of electricity.

13. Any grievance connected with unauthorized use of

electricity under Section 126 of the Electricity Act is

excluded from the definition of complaint as this dispute is

against the bill raised by the licensee against unauthorized

use of electricity, this forum has no jurisdiction to

entertain the complaint.

- 8 -

14. Therefore this forum has no jurisdiction to interfere

into the findings of the appellate authority, Deputy Chief

Engineer, Electrical Circle, Kottarakkara and accordingly the

complaint is dismissed.

No order as to cost.

If the petitioner is not satisfied with the above order of this

Forum, she is at liberty to prefer appeal before the Electricity

Ombudsman within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

The address of the Electricity Ombudsman is furnished below.

State Electricity Ombudsman, Pallikkavil Buildings, Mamangalam-

Anchumana Temple Road, Opp:Kochi Corporation Regional Office,

Edappally, Kochi – 682 024, Ph: 0484 -2346488.

S/d S/d S/d

N.SASIDHARANUNNITHAN S. PRESANNAKUMARI JALAJA.T

MEMBER MEMBER CHAIRPERSON/ EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER

Forwarded

CHAIRPERSON (DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER)

CGRF (SOUTH), KOTTARAKKARA PIN – 691 506