| The appellant is running a hotel in the name and style, ‘Paulson Park Hotel’, with consumer number 5481 under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, College, Ernakulam. On 05-09-2001, the appellant had submitted an application before the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, College, Ernakulam for conversion of existing LT service connection to HT, after remitting the required application fee and after complying with all necessary formalities. Moreover, the appellant had executed an OYEC agreement on 03-05-2002 with the Assistant Executive Engineer for availing the HT supply and remitted an amount of Rs. 2,84,400.00 towards cash deposit for allocation of power to the extent of 180 kVA with a contract demand of 150 kVA.
The power allocation was sanctioned as per proceedings dated 09-08-2002 of the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Ernakulam and the appellant had remitted the estimated amount of Rs. 1,11,100.00 on 14-08-2002 as demand draft for carrying out the works, as directed by the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Ernakulam. Meanwhile, one Sri Ameer V. Aslam objected for erecting electric post in front of his land and subsequently the locations of poles were changed. A revised estimate for Rs. 1,37,790.00 was prepared by the respondent, as per the directions of Hon’ble High Court in OP No. 31261/2002 filed by Sri. Ameer V. Aslam.
However, the appellant remitted the additional demand for Rs. 26,690.00 under protest on 10-06-2003. Though the contractor had started the work for giving HT service connection, the work could not be carried out due to the presence of so many telephone cables drawn along the road. Consequently, erection of the proposed DP structure was shifted to the opposite side of the road. Against this proposal, one Smt. Mary Sebastine had filed a petition before the Assistant Executive Engineer objecting to the drawing of the line and also filed a suit vide OS No. 888 of 2003. An injunction was passed against the Board preventing from proceeding further steps in this regard. Since the respondent did not carry out further steps, the appellant filed WP(C) 25386/2003 before the Hon’ble High Court.
The Hon’ble High Court disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the Board to apprise the Civil Court regarding the statutory provisions and the objections of land owner have to be considered by the District Magistrate and the Court will consider the alternate remedy available under the statute and the suit can be disposed of by the Munsiff Court if found not maintainable. After vacating the injunction by the District Court, the respondent filed a complaint before the Additional District Magistrate under Section 16(1) of the Telegraph Act. As per the proceedings dated 05-02-2007, the Additional District Magistrate directed the Board to draw the line as per Horizontal Direct Drilling (HDD) method after removing the posts already erected in front of Mary Sebastian’s property.
The grievance of the appellant is that the inordinate delay to provide HT service connection had resulted in bringing to a halt of functioning of the hotel, which consequently resulted in default in payment of electricity charges and subsequently dismantlement of connection. The appellant approached the CGRF requesting to treat him as a deemed HT consumer with effect from 05-09-2001 till dismantling of the service and further claiming a sum of Rs.1,63,71,357.00 towards loss and damages suffered by the appellant on account of non conversion of the LT connection to HT. The CGRF dismissed the petition vide order No. 30/2006-07 dated 10-12-2007 as it found no merit in the contentions of the appellant.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the CGRF the appellant had filed appeal petition before this Authority. The appeal was disposed of by ordering that the billing done from August 2003 has to be revised at HT treating the appellant as a deemed HT consumer and no other reliefs, vide order No. 02/2008 of 14-3-2008. The KSEB filed WP(C) 20445/2008 before the Hon’ble High Court challenging the order rendered by the Ombudsman directing to treat the consumer as deemed HT from August 2003 onwards. On the other hand, the appellant also filed WP (C) 26745/2008 challenging orders passed by the CGRF as well as Ombudsman declining to grant the amount of compensation claimed. The Hon’ble High Court, in its common judgment dated 27-11-2013, remanded the matter afresh, after affording fresh opportunity of personal hearing to the parties concerned.
In view of the discussions it is decided that the appellant is eligible for deemed HT consumer with effect from 08-02-2003 to the date of dismantling of service i.e. 16-05-2006. It is also made clear that the appellant is entitled for refund of the amount deposited for effecting the conversion from LT to HT with interest at bank rate as on the date of remittance of amount.
The question of compensation of Rs. 1,63,71,367.00 claimed by the appellant, this Authority is not empowered to take a decision as to the right of the appellant to claim compensation and to decide the amount of damage sustained by the appellant in this regard. That question is left open. The appellant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Forum for the damages if he so desires. |
|
|
Data
|
| Size |
262.02 KB |
| Downloads |
1093 |
| Created |
2017-01-31 00:00:00 |
|
|
|
Overview
Search Downloads
Submit file
Up
P/058/2016 Sri. C.P. Paul Ernakulam 