Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Ramachandran Nair, J.

The question raised is whether the electricity bill raised after inspection, when unauthorised use was noticed, should be challenged before the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short) or whether the aggrieved consumer can redress grievance by approaching the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) constituted under the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum and Electricity Ombudsman) Regulations, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations for short) framed under Section 181(1) of the Act.

2. The appellant had two electricity connections both under LT-VI B tariff, which covers hostels, educational institutions run by charitable institutions etc. However, during an inspection held on 28/10/2010, the KSEB noticed that from one of the connections  granted under tariff LT-VI B, the appellant has taken connection to buildings where IELTS coaching is given to students on chargeable basis and to a building run as a guest house providing accommodation to guests. Based on the allegation of unauthorised use, electricity bill was raised under Section 126(3) of the Act, against which statutory appeal is provided under Section 127 of the Act to the appellate authority, who is the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Electricity Board. The appellant instead filed a complaint before the CGRF and filed a Writ Petition in this Court for a mandamus to the CGRF to decide the matter and until then to stay all proceedings for recovery of the bill amount. The learned Single Judge felt that the appellant's remedy is to file statutory appeal and therefore, without deciding anything else on merits, the learned Single Judge disposed of the Writ Petition directing the appellant to file statutory appeal as provided under Section 127 of the Act before the appellant authority. This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the said judgment of the learned Single Judge for a declaration that against the disputed bill the appellant is entitled to maintain a complaint before the CGRF, the 5th respondent herein, and there is no need to file an appeal under Section 127 of the Act.

3. We have heard Shri.Julian Xavier, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri.C.K.Karunakaran, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the Single Bench judgment of this Court in Jose Francis v. KSEB, reported in 2009(4) KLT 465, wherein this Court held that disputes on classification for tariff and bill raised on allegation of unauthorised use of power could be disputed and settled before the CGRF above referred. However, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the KSEB referred to definition clause (2)(f)(vii) of the Regulations, which prohibits maintainability of complaints against electricity bills raised under Section 126(3) of the Act alleging unauthorised use. The question to be considered is whether electricity bill raised after inspection and on finding alleged unauthorised use of power is to be challenged before the appellate authority under Section 127 of the Act or whether it can be settled by the CGRF created under the Regulations. If the bill raised under Section 126 based on allegation of unauthorised use of power falls within the exception clause 2(f)(vii) of the Regulations, then certainly, the CGRF does not have the authority and the appellant's  remedy is only to file an appeal before the statutory authority under Section 127 of the Act. In order to examine the matter, the relevant statutory provisions are extracted hereunder:-

(b) of the Act and clause 2(f)(vii)(i) of the Regulations. It is specifically provided under Section 127(1) of the Act that an appeal is maintainable against any proceedings or bills raised under Section 126 of the Act.

6. The next question to be considered is whether the CGRF also has concurrent jurisdiction, and if so, which Authority should be allowed to decide the matter. In this case, we find force in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB that CGRF has no jurisdiction because under sub clause (vii)(1) of Clause 2(f) of the Regulations, electricity bill raised by the licensee against a consumer for unauthorised use of electricity under Section 126 of the Act is specifically excluded from the scope of "complaint". On the other hand, electricity bill raised based on allegation of  unauthorised uses, which include use of power for the purposes other than mentioned under the tariff under which connection is given, is an order specifically appealable under section 127 of the Act, which is excluded from the scope of "complaint" covered by Regulations. So much so, in our view, when the Regulations specifically exclude the jurisdiction of the CGRF on all disputes pertaining to bills raised under Section 126 of the Act on allegation of unauthorised use the only remedy available to the appellant against such bill is to file an appeal under Section 127 before the statutory authority. In view of this finding, we disapprove the view expressed in the reported judgment above referred and uphold the judgment of the learned Single Judge impugned in this appeal.