Allowed

M/S Popular Vehicles v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC5 Jun 2014WP(C)/1381/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Kerala allowed a writ petition challenging an order by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum which rejected a compliance complaint. The court held that the impugned order was a short assessment of escaped charges, not a penalty, and thus the Forum had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13.1.2014 quashed; complaint restored to Forum for merits; enforcement of demand kept in abeyance for 3 weeks.

M/S Popular Vehicles Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/15TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 1381 of 2014 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/S.POPULAR VEHICLES AND SERVICES LTD., NEAR LISSY HOSPITAL, NEAR MRI CENTRE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, PIN-682 018, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, KUTTUKKARAN CENTRE, MAMANGALAM, PIN-688 025, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER (SERVICE)MR.SREERAJ.K.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH SRI.V.S.SHIRAZ BAVA SRI.A.K.MOHAMED ALI

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHYUDHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶11

2. THE CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, CENTRAL REGION, POWER HOUSE ROAD, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KALOOR, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.JAICE JACOB,SC,KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Kss

¶16

WP(C).No. 1381 of 2014 (W)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶19

EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 23.07.2013.

¶20

EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 1-8-2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOT ASSESSMENT INVOICE DATED 1-8-2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 6-8-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER NO.DB-1-AE/KLR/PROCEEDINGS/201314/CON.NO.12949 DATED 16-12-2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SHORT ASSESSMENT BILL DATED 16-12-2013 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXT.P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF COMPLAINT DATED 11-1-2014 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT WITHOUT EXHIBITS.

¶26

EXT.P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CGRF-CR/MISC/2013-14/731 DATED 13-1-2014.

¶27

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

N I L

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

Kss

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.

WP(C).NO.1381 of 2014

¶34

Dated this the 5th day of June, 2014

¶35

JUDGMENT

¶36

Aggrieved by Ext.P5 proceedings issued by the 3^rd respondent, the petitioner had approached the 2^nd respondent in Ext.P7 complaint. But the complaint was rejected through Ext.P8 order observing that the 2^nd respondent has no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint, as the impugned order is a decision taken by the assessing officer under section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003. Findings in Ext.P8 is based on section 145 of the Electricity Act 2003 and Regulation 2 (1) (f) (vii) of the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations 2005. It is challenging Ext.P8 this writ petition is filed

¶37

Contention of the petitioner is that eventhough the 3^rd respondent had issued the provisional bill as well as a final order (Exts.P3 and P5). Pursuant to an inspection conducted, there is no assessment of penalty imposed under section 126. On the

¶38

WPC.1381/2014

¶39

¶40

other hand, it is only a back assessment made alleging misuse of energy. Hence the bar under Regulation 2(1) (f) (vii) will not apply.

¶41

It is noticed that in Ext.P5 it is specifically mentioned that the consumption is billed only as a short assessment, due to the difference in tariff for a particular period. Therefore it is evident that it is only a back assessment of the escaped charges. Therefore it is clear that there is no imposition of penalty in exercise of power vested on the assessing authority under section 126, made on the basis of any detection of unauthorised usage. An appeal contemplated under section 127 is not maintainable against the back assessment. Hence it is to be held that the 2^nd respondent has got jurisdiction to examine the issue raised through the complaint filed by the petitioner.

¶42

Under the above mentioned circumstances Ext.P8 is hereby quashed. The 2^nd respondent Forum is directed to restore Ext.P7 complaint on its file and to dispose of the same on merits. Needless to observe that the petitioner will be at liberty to seek appropriate interim relief from the 2^nd respondent,

¶43

WPC.1381/2014

¶44

¶45

pending disposal of the complaint.

¶46

In order to facilitate the petitioner to seek appropriate interim relief from the 2^nd respondent, enforcement of the amount demanded is directed to be kept in abeyance for a period

¶47

of 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶48

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

¶49

pmn/

¶50

WPC.1381/2014 4

M/S Popular Vehicles v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Popular Vehicles v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sibi Chandran.P.C Vs K.G.Mohanlal IFS

Vinodan A.K Vs Prasanna Kumari

Asokan S. Vs the Assistant Executive Engineer

Prima Agro Products Ltd. Vs K.S.E.Board

Prima Agro Products Limited Vs State of Kerala

E.Mohammed Haji Vs K.S.E.Board & Others