| The appellant is a consumer with consumer No.6613 (old No. 11719) of Electrical Section, Rajakumary KSEB under LT IV tariff and is conducting a small scale furniture unit in the name and style as Sebastian Industries. The service connection was effected with a connected load of 7110 Watts and as per the request of the appellant the connected load was enhanced to 7350 Watts and 14920 Watts on 03-03-2000 and 23-05-2001 respectively. Again the connected load of the consumer was further enhanced to 60 kW with effect from 29-01-2008 after remitting sufficient additional cash deposit.
During the audit conducted by the Accountant General (Audit), it was detected that the consumer was given undue benefit to the tune of Rs.1,46,000.00 at Board’s cost. Based on the audit report the Assistant Engineer issued a demand notice for Rs.1,46,000.00 to the appellant. Aggrieved against this, a complaint was filed before the CGRF (Central), Ernakulam. Meanwhile, the appellant also filed a Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala which was disposed of with a direction to the CGRF to consider the petition by giving an opportunity to hear the complainant, vide judgment dated 20-07-2015 in W.P.(C) No. 29131. The CGRF dismissed the complaint vide order in OP No. 78/2015-16 dated 15-10-2015.
Against the above order, the appellant has filed this appeal petition P/171/2015 before this Authority on 11-11-2015. The appellant again filed a Writ Petition No. 34470/2015 before the Hon’ble High Court and the Hon’ble High Court disposed of the petition directing this Authority to consider and pass orders on the appeal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment dated 16-11-2015.
The licensee is entitled to recover from the owner or occupier of any premises requiring supply the expenses reasonably incurred by the licensee for providing any electrical line or electrical plant required specifically for the purpose of giving such supply as per Section 46 of Electricity Act. Here in this case, no separate transformer was installed either in the premises of the appellant or in the vicinity of his premises, the respondent has not incurred any expenditure on this account. In this background demand issued for Rs. 1,46,000.00 is hereby quashed. Appeal is admitted and the order of CGRF in OP No. 78/2015-16 dated 15-10-2015 is set aside. No order as to costs. |
|
|
Data
|
| Size |
233.71 KB |
| Downloads |
1214 |
| Created |
2016-03-02 00:00:00 |
|
|
|
Overview
Search Downloads
Submit file
Up
P/171/2015 Sri K.V. Sebastine Idukki. 