Dismissed

The Assistant Executive Engineer v. Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum

Kerala HC5 Aug 2016WP(C)/2992/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court rejected the Kerala State Electricity Board's writ petition challenging a Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum order. The Forum had directed a refund of excessive charges for a power connection based on a site inspection and provided alternative, more economical cable routes. The Court held that the Forum was competent and its factual findings based on site inspection warranted

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no interference against the impugned order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum.

The Assistant Executive Engineer Vs Consumer Grievance… — Consumer Protection | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/14TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 2992 of 2013 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SUB DIVISION, PUTHENCHANTHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAJAN,SC

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM (SOUTH), KOTTARAKKARA-691506. ` REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON.

¶11

2. SMT. JASMINE RAJESH, M/S. MANSINS, T.C. NO. 16/136, KUMARAMANGALAM, EASWARAVILASAM, ROAD, VAZHUTHAKKADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶12

R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

K.V.

¶15

WP(C).NO.2992 OF 2013

¶16

¶17

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶18

----------------------

¶19

EXT.P1	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINANT IN ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 700/2012 FILED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT BEFORE THE FIRST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P2	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF FACTS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO EXT. P1 COMPLAINT.
EXT.P3	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23-3-12 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN O.P. NO. 700/12.
EXT.P4	TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION NO. RP1/OP NO. 700/12 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXT.P5	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 29-9-12 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN RP1/OP NO. 700/12.

¶20

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO.JUDGE

K.V.

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, J.

¶25

=============== W.P. (C) No. 2992 of 2013

¶26

==================

¶27

Dated this, the 5^th day of August, 2016

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

This writ petition is filed by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, challenging an order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (for short 'CGRF') in OP No.700/2012 (Ext.P3) and the order in review (Ext.P5).

¶30

The short facts involved in the writ petition would disclose that the 2^nd respondent being the promoter and registered owner of a high rise building applied for a service connection to the said complex by name Serene Square. For providing service connection, the owner had to install transformer and other equipments of the required capacity by herself. An estimate was prepared by the Board for an amount of 8,89,000/-. The work was completed and the power connection had been provided to Consumer Nos.10194 to 10208. Thereafter, the 2<sup>nd</sup> respondent preferred a complaint before the CGRF _inter alia_ contending that the estimate was exorbitant and sought for refund of 11,62,277/-.

¶31

W.P(C) No.2992/13

¶32

-:2:-

¶33

The CGRF after considering the factual issues involved in the matter observed that Board cannot realise the expense of an alternate route which causes the consumer extra expenses. Therefore, the Board has to examine the possibility of the shortest and economical access. Accordingly, the Board was directed to provide a revised estimate taking into account the shortest economic and feasible way and direction has been issued to refund the excess amount remitted by the petitioner.

¶34

The Board filed a review petition inter alia contending that 2^nd respondent was not the owner as she had already assigned the property to various persons and she is trying to make unjust enrichment. It is further contended that the complaint is not a grievance within the meaning of Regulation, 2005. According to the review petitioner, the estimate amount was collected based on various Board orders issued during the transitional period which was ratified by the transfer scheme published by the State Government as per Section 131 of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Forum dismissed the review petition finding that there is no irregularity or infirmity in the order passed.

¶35

W.P(C) No.2992/13

¶36

-:3:-

¶37

Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2^nd respondent wherein they supported the stand taken by the CGRF. It is stated that when a Forum constituted for the purpose of looking into the complaints/grievances of consumers have on the basis of factual findings taken a view, it is not open for the Board to challenge the same in the present proceedings.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶39

The first question to be considered is whether this Court should interfere with the order passed by the CGRF. CGRF is established based on the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005. As per Regulation 6, the Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaints within the entire area of the distribution licensee and in terms of Regulation 7, the Forum can take up any kind of grievances/complaints as defined in Regulation 2(1)(f). Regulation 2(1)(f) stipulates the various grievances that could be taken up before the Forum which includes charging of a price in excess of price fixed by the Commission for supply of electricity and allied services and any

¶40

W.P(C) No.2992/13

¶41

-:4:-

¶42

other grievance connected with the supply of electricity by the licensee except certain matters stipulated under sub clauses (1) to (3). Therefore, it cannot be stated that the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. This is an instance where the complainant has a case that the estimate prepared for providing power connection is excessive.

¶43

Now the question is whether there is any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Forum which requires interference by this Court in a writ petition. First of all, the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court is limited in matters relating to disputed facts and that too which requires technical knowhow. CGRF is the competent agency which has the expertise to consider whether the actions of the Board/licensee is in accordance with the statutory provisions and whether their actions are unreasonable or unfair in any manner.

¶44

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that when an estimate is prepared by the Board and when the work is completed based on the said estimate, it is not open for the 2^nd respondent to later complain that the estimate was highly excessive. Any consumer to whom supply of energy is required

¶45

W.P(C) No.2992/13

¶46

-:5:-

¶47

has no other option other than to approach the Board who is the only licensee. If the amounts demanded by them is not paid immediately, necessarily, there will be delay in supply of power. Under such circumstances, every consumer is forced to remit the amount as directed by the Board. However, such payment does not preclude the consumer from challenging the demand in an appropriate manner. When a Forum has been provided to challenge an excess amount being demanded or collected by the Board, I do not think that payment by the 2^nd respondent would deprive her the right to challenge the estimate after obtaining the power connection.

¶48

The other contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that for extending the HT supply upto the incoming HT panel in the premises of SERENE SQUARE, an estimate was prepared with certain requirements, which reads as under:-

¶49

“1. As the present (During taking estimate) CTC RMU available at the nearest HT supply point, ie at : ”West Cliff” is not an extensible type, and no other spare outlet available at this supply point, and hence an extensible RMU at this point was proposed and included in the estimate. As the

¶50

W.P(C) No.2992/13

¶51

-:6:-

¶52

estimate report of the Assistant Engineer, he also proposed to shift the existing RMU to the location in front of the premise on the public road, from where the cable was laid through the land of promoter.

¶53

2. For extending HT supply from the newly proposed Extensible type RMU to the shifted CTC RMU in front of Complainant premise, about 440 m of 3 X 300 sqmm XLPE Aluminum cable is proposed through the public road.

¶54

3. For further extending the HT supply from the CTC RMU in front of the premise of the complainant on the public road to the incoming of the promoter, about 70 m of 3 X 150 sqmm XLPE Aluminum cable is proposed through the land of promoter.”

¶55

The Forum observed that as per the estimate and proposal prepared by the Assistant Engineer, it was stated that the existing non-extensible type RMU shall be shifted and installed in front of the petitioner's premises at the West Cliff. This proposal was revised by the Executive Engineer by which it was stated that a new extensible type RMU shall be installed in front of the premises of the petitioner by realising cost of `6,60,000/- and sanction was accorded for procuring and laying 440 metres of UG cable from West Cliff RMU to the extensible type RMU installed in front of the building and laying 70 metres

¶56

W.P(C) No.2992/13

¶57

-:7:-

¶58

cable from RMU to the indoor transformer. It is observed that the proposal made by the Assistant Engineer for shifting the extensible type RMU was in accordance with the prevailing Board order rather than directing acquisition of a new extensible type RMU. It is further observed that the Chairperson of the Forum personally inspected the premises of West Cliff RMU and the proposed RMU in front of Serene Square and had arrived at the following facts, which are recorded as under:-

¶59

“In the West Cliff point there is a non-extensible type RMU. One transformer is connected to its outlet. An out going cable from the RMU is intercepted to a DP structure and a 300 sq.mm cable is seen given to the cliff house. Another 300 sq.mm cable is given to Serene Square. A single pole is seen erected at the right side of entrance of serene square upon a foot path. When a RMU is installed upon the footpath, the purpose of the footpath is permanently defeated. From that RMU, when new connections are to be given for the prospective consumers, by using Add on modules, the footpath cannot be used in any manner. Such a situation is not foreseen or examined by the authority at the time of preparing the estimate.

¶60

2. A stand by feeder from that point is seen extended to cliff house which is a 300 sq.mm cable.

¶61

W.P(C) No.2992/13

¶62

-:8:-

¶63

3. As per Ext.P3 & P4, an extensible type RMU is needed at West Cliff Point, to effect supply to cliff house feeder, to the petitioner and to other existing transformer. Thus the extensible type RMU proposed at the west cliff should have 3 free outlets. Then only supply can be tapped without Add on modules. AS per the Ext.P3 & P4, the installation of extensible type RMU at West cliff point is not mentioned, and is not available there. Here it is not stated that an RMU should be installed at the Board's own plan.

¶64

4. On enquiry it was revealed that the west cliff feeder is a stand by one. The stand by feeder at the cliff house should be in such a way as it could be linked with another feeder. Then an extensible type RMU is needed at that point. From there through an Add on module, service can be effected to M/s.Serene Square. On enquiry it is revealed that the length of cable required from the cliff house to the petitioner's premises is below 250 mts. Only.

¶65

5. As per Ext.P3 & P4, the Board shall install an extensible type RMU at the west cliff point. Nothing is seen mentioned towards this in the order nor the opposite party has stated the same. In the version of the opposite party and in the estimate sanction of the Executive Engineer, it is seen that the supply could be given by extending 440 mtrs. of 300 sq.mm cable.”

¶66

W.P(C) No.2992/13

¶67

-:9:-

¶68

It is in the above background that it was found that the service connection to the 2^nd respondent can be effected from the Cliff house point by extending around 250 metres of underground cable. It is therefore relevant to note that the finding of the Forum is based on relevant materials and after conducting an inspection of the site.

¶69

In the aforesaid circumstances, I do not think that this Court will be justified in interfering with such finding of fact especially when no other material had been made available to indicate otherwise.

¶70

In the above circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned orders. Writ petition is dismissed.

¶71

Sd/-

¶72

A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE

¶73

The Assistant Executive Engineer v. Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Assistant Executive Engineer v. Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aparna M.S. Vs Apj Abdul Kalam Technological University

M/S. D.C. Mills Vs State Bank of India

T.C. Mathew Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Sebastian T.T Vs the Authorised Officer

Saritha.M.K. Vs State of Kerala

Balachandran Vs the District Collector