| This appeal petition is filed by Mr. Akhil Sreeram, S/o R. Sreeni, Partner, M/s Thailekshmi Theatre, T.B Junction, Valacode P.O., Valacode village, Punalur Taluk residing at VURA 82 A, Rambhavan, Vadakemulloor Road, Anayara, Thiruvananthapuram, Consumer number 1145932003343, who is the legal heir of R. Sreeni, being aggrieved by the order in OP No: 301/2016 dated 6/03/2017. The said R. Sreeni was the complainant in the complaint filed before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Kottarakkara on 25/11/2016. The complainant, R. Sreeni died on 27/11/2016. The appellant has a three phase service connection with registered connected load of 23 KW and the assigned tariff is LT VII C. A cinema theatre named Thailekshmi has been functioning in the premises. On 15.10.2016, a surprise inspection was carried out in the premises by the Anti Power Theft Squad ,Kollam along with the section officials and noticed that there was connected and using a total load of 75 kW, without obtaining prior sanction from the licensee and hence there was connected and using an unauthorised load 52 kW in the premises. Accordingly a site mahazar was prepared and based on the site mahazar for the unauthorised load to the tune of 52 kW, a provisional assessment for Rs. 7,24,831/-was issued to the consumer under section 126 of the Act 2003.
Against the same, the consumer had filed an appeal before the Assessing Officer and after conducting a hearing the provisional assessment was revised for Rs. 5,37,956/-(UAL 30 kW) and a final assessment order was issued along with detailed calculation statement. Though the consumer had been informed in the final order itself that the appeal authority is the Appellate Authority, he approached the Hon'ble CGRF (South) vide OP No.301/2016 and the Hon'ble Forum pronounced its order on 06.03.2017 holding that 'the forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the case is against the bill issued under 126 of the Electricity Act 2003 and also directed the petitioner to file appeal before the appellate authority.
Instead of filing appeal before the aforesaid statutory authority, the appellant
herein approached first the CGRF and thereafter this Authority. It seems that the modus operandi of the appellant was to protract the dispute for a further period without paying any portion of the billed amount. Moreover, CGRF / Electricity Ombudsman has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints relating to unauthorised use of electricity as provided under Section 126 of the Act, in view of the bar under Sub Clause (vii) (I) of Clause 2 (f) of the Regulations. It is therefore held that the remedy available to the appellant is only an appeal before the Statutory Authority under Section 127 and that this appeal petition is not maintainable. The order of the CGRF is upheld. The appeal petition is rejected as not maintainable. The appellant is directed to approach the Appellate Authority. Having concluded and decided as above, it is ordered accordingly. No order as to costs. |
|
|
Data
|
| Size |
131.71 KB |
| Downloads |
1161 |
| Created |
2017-07-24 00:00:00 |
|
|
|
Overview
Search Downloads
Submit file
Up
P/045/2017 Sri. Akhil Sreeni, Punalur, Kollam 
