Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... b1 and b2 documents. the counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the assessment was done by the opposite parties as per the section 126(5) (6) of electricity amendment act 2007 an assessment at the rate equal to two times the tariff applicable for a period of 12 months immediately proceeding the date of inspection must be imposed. the counsel ..... to 2 times with tariff applicable for a period of 12 months immediately proceeding the date of inspection much imposed, as per section 126 (5) (6) of electricity amendment act, 2007. the fora taken a view that the assessment of the opposite party is correct, hence the impugned bill issued by them is also upheld by the forum below. 6 ..... has been issued out of previous enmity is false. on 18.9.09 , a surprise inspection was conducted by the authorized office under section 126 of the electricity act and it is found that consumer no. 7764 has an unauthorized load of 7kw and a mahazer was prepared and copy of the same was given to the employees .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... date of disconnection of the electricity supply connection. thus, it can be seen that the complainant herein availed the service of the opposite parties for running her industrial unit by the name heera cables and the said services were availed prior to 15.3.03. it is to be noted that the amended act 62/02 came into effect ..... the complainant who availed the service of the opposite parties for commercial purpose prior to the commencement of the amended act 62/02 can be treated as a consumer as defined under section 2 (i) d (ii) of the consumer protection act, 1986. thus, in all respects the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant is not a consumer ..... on 15.3.03 prior to the said amendment, service availed for commercial purpose was also included within the purview of the consumer protection act, 1986. in other words, a person who availed the service for commercial purpose was .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... between the commercial and livelihood and also the elaborated interpretation of the livelihood and commercial which defined in the consumer protection act before and after the amendment carried out in the act (2003). very same time it is seeing that the counsel for the respondent/opposite party submitted that the forum below discussed ..... found that the complainants firm is not coming under the domestic tariff but under the commercial tariff. there are 3 categories of tariffs as per the electricity supply code, they are; domestic tariff, commercial tariff, and industrial tariff. industrial tariff is costly than the domestic tariff. the domestic tariff is normally ..... cheaper than both commercial and industrial tariff. commercial tariff is higher in rate of electrical energy. the only question is that whether the opposite parties can change the domestic tariff of the complainant into the commercial tariff or not? there .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... /opposite parties support the impugned order passed by the forum below. he much relied on the provisions of secs. 125, 126, and 127 of the electricity act. thus, the respondents requested for dismissal of the present appeal. 5. the points that arise for considerations are: 1. whether the forum below can be justified in dismissing ..... position that the appellant was not given an opportunity to deposit half of the a1 bill amount covered by a1 bill as provided under sec.127(2) of the electricity act, 2003. thus, the appellant/complainant requested to set aside the impugned order passed by the forum below. on the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents ..... equal to 1/3 of the assessed amount with the licensee. the 1/3 of the amount has been modified as of the assessed amount by the subsequent amendment. the aforesaid observations made by the honble national commission would make it more clear that it was the duty of forum below to afford an opportunity to the .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... arrears of energy charges due to the licensee. if that be so, the arrear of energy charges claimed by p1 bill is not nit by sec.56(2) of the electricity act, 2003. the said finding of the forum below is liable to be quashed. hence this commission do so. 4. the p1 bill was issued for arrears of energy charges for ..... to be noted that the service availed for commercial purpose was taken away from the purview of the definition consumer only by the amendment of the act which came into force on 15..3..2003. prior to the said amendment service availed for commercial purpose was also brought under the definition consumer as defined under sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of the consumer ..... order passed by the forum below is liable to be set aside. hence this commission do so. in the result the appeal is allowed. the impugned order dated:26..4..2007 passed by cdrf, thrissur in op:367/02 is set aside. the complaint in op:367/02 is also dismissed. the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs through .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... the warranty service is also a service as referred to under sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of the consumer protection act, 1986. it is also to be borne in mind that before the commencement of the amended act 62/02 which came into effect on 15..3..2003 service availed for commercial purpose was also brought under the ..... the said melco engineering mr.chandra mohanan is a mechanical engineer and that payment was also made by the complainant through kfc. pw1 is also admitted that electrical works were done by a concern by name acqualite engineering company at quilon. it is also admitted by pw1 that the civil work regarding construction of foundation ..... nediyavila veedu, kochalammodu, cherhannoor, kollam. the drawings supplied by the opposite parties were only for general reference for preparing the foundation. all erections and other fitments, electrical and civil works were done by mr.chandra mohan and m/s acqualite engineering company, kollam. the payments towards the erection charges were paid by m/s kfc .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... electricity act 2003 were in force. the forum below directed the opposite parties to limit the un authorized ..... , at the relevant time the amended sub section (5) and (6) of section 126 of the ..... purpose other than for which the usage of electricity was authorized; or (v) for the premises or areas other than those for which the supply of electricity was authorized. 7. it is also to be noted that sub section (5) and sub section (6) of section 126 of the electricity act, 2003 have been amended by act 26 of 2007 w.e.f.15/6/07. so .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... connected to the phase for measuring energy were defective. the opposite parties found additional loads to the bull station in contravention to provision of supply of electrical energy. of course admitted that they have no case that the complainant had tampered with the meter and committed theft of energy. they said that during ..... the complainants farm and noted some irregularities in the functioning of the meter. it was detected that the meter was not registering the actual consumption of electricity. the opposite parties had made fresh assessments and issued bills to the complainant firm for rs.2,46,671.55 in the year 1991 and for ..... the complaint. a public sector undertaking is a complainant according to the provisions of the consumer protection act. the contention raised by appellants is that the complainant is commercial establishment. by the amendment of the consumer protection act that in the year of 2002 this contingency was solved. there is no doubt regarding the maintainability .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... the second opposite party, india machine tools company. it would show that the brand new peeling machine size 4 ft. to complete with all standard fittings without electricals wire dispatched from calicut to kasaragod in a pick up van with registration no.kl 11 c 9315. the complainant has categorically averred in the complaint and in ..... purchased the peeling machine for commercial purpose and so he cannot be termed as a consumer as defined under section 2 (1) (d) of the consumer protection act. but, the first opposite party omitted to note the pleading in the complaint that complainant is conducting peeling unit by name national peeling unit and the income getting ..... purchased would come under the purview of the consumer protection act, 1986. it is true that the position has been changed after the introduction of the amendment of section 2 (1) (d) (2) by amended act62/2002 which came into effect on 15.3.03. after the said amendment, a person who availed services for commercial purpose has been .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Thiruvananthapuram
..... name suchee home stay, burnacherry. ext.b1 is the mahazer prepared by the apts. it was found that there was 5 kw excess connected load. applying section 126 of the electricity act and regulation 50 (5) and (6) of the conditions of supply the board issued the additional bill for 12 months previous consumption at the rate of commercial tariff and for ..... cannot be believed in the absence of any objective evidence. the finding that the assessment can only be at rate equal to 1 times is also incorrect as vide the amendment in 2007 the rate applicable is 2 times. in the circumstances we find that the order of the forum is incorrect and cannot be sustained. hence the order is set aside .....
Tag this Judgment!