| The appellant, Sri Muhammed Rafeeque M.A., is an industrial consumer with consumer No. 12042 having connected load of 47 kW under Electrical Section, Vazhakulam. On 16-03-2016, the APTS of KSEB conducted a surprise inspection in the above premises and found that voltage of R phase (out of 3 phases) was missing in the energy meter due to fault in the connection to the meter. When one phase voltage being not sensed by the energy meter, the energy recorded would be only 2/3rd of the actual consumption. Hence the appellant was served with a short assessment bill for an amount of Rs. 2,92,664.00 on 19-03-2016. In order to recover the charges for the unrecorded portion of energy, the assessment was made for the period of seven months, when the meter was found recording less than the actual consumption.
The appellant lodged complaint before the Assessing officer, the Assistant Engineer, against the said assessment, on 26-05-2016 which was disposed of with a direction to remit the assessed amount before 05-09-2016. Being not satisfied with the decision of the Assistant Engineer, the appellant approached the CGRF, Central Region, Ernakulam, with Petition No. OP 66/2016-17 and the Forum also dismissed the petition vide its order dated 31-12-2016. Feeling aggrieved against the decision of the Forum, the appellant has submitted the appeal petition before this Authority.
Here in this case, the non recording of one phase of the energy meter in the appellant’s premises was detected by the respondent during the inspection conducted on 16-03-2016 but the appellant was charged only for 7 months instead of 12 months as per the above Regulation. The actual consumption recorded in the meter itself was taken for assessing the unrecorded portion of energy. The increase in consumption recorded after the rectification of defects clearly indicates and justifies the respondent’s claim that the appellant was undercharged for the period from 09/2015 onwards. So, a probable conclusion can be arrived at in this case is that the voltage of ‘R’ phase was missing from September 2015 onwards as per the downloaded data. Under the above circumstances the short assessment issued by the respondent is found in order.
In view of the above factual and legal position, I don’t find any reason to interfere with the short assessment bill dated 19-03-2016 issued for Rs. 2,92,664.00. Hence the appeal is dismissed. The order of CGRF in OP No. CGRF-CR/Comp.66/2016-17 dated 31-12-2016 is upheld. No order as to costs. |
|
|
Data
|
| Size |
246.87 KB |
| Downloads |
1100 |
| Created |
2017-03-30 00:00:00 |
|
|
|
Overview
Search Downloads
Submit file
Up
P/016/2017 Sri. Muhammed Rafeeque M.A. Mudickal P.O., Perumbavoor 