ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. KITTY PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Assistant Executive Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) is the petitioner. Challenge is against Ext.P8 order passed by the 2nd respondent in an appeal filed by the 1st respondent against Ext.P5 order of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (South), Kottarakkara (CGRF).

(2.) THE first respondent was provided with two electric connections in two distinct floors of a building. The connection provided in the first floor with consumer No.12941 was under domestic tariff (LT 1-A). The connection provided in the ground floor with consumer No.12940 was under the industrial tariff (LT- IV) and the said premise was let out for running an industrial unit. On an inspection conducted at the premises on 23.7.2009 misuse of energy was detected in the domestic connection with consumer No.12941. One room of the premises was seen used for industrial purposes, for running a Test Lab. On detection of unauthorised use of electricity, penalty was imposed under section 126 of the Electricity Act 2003, to the tune of Rs.8,176.00, which was subsequently reduced to Rs.4388.00. On the basis of the alleged misuse, the tariff applicable to consumer No.12941 was changed from Domestic to Commercial ( from LT-IA to LT VII A).

(3.) IN the meanwhile on 7.11.2009, 'service wire' of consumer No.12490 in the ground floor got burned. Electric supply was restored after realising cost of the service wire from the 1st respondent, on 9.11.2009. The 1st respondent submitted an application to the Assistant Engineer concerned claiming compensation alleging that there occurred delay in effecting reconnection, inspite of complaint registered at 5.00 p.m. On 7.11.2009 itself. Alleging that the Assistant Engineer had failed in disposing the application for compensation and also alleging that no action was taken by the Board inspite of complaint submitted to the Regulatory Commission, the 1st respondent had approached the CGRF. It is on the said application that the CGRF had issued Ext.P5 order. The CGRF found that there was no deficiency in service in resuming supply and the supply was restored within 2 days. Hence there is no circumstance warranting awarding of compensation, is the finding. However, while dismissing the complaint it was observed that, there occurred delay on the part of the Assistant Engineer in acknowledging the claim, for which departmental action is necessary.