The court emphasized the need for comprehensive review and consideration of all relevant facts when determining the requirement for additional infrastructure and cost recovery.

JUDGMENT

The Assistant Executive Engineer and the Assistant Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board, Velloorkunnam, Ernakulam District, have filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 order passed by the State Electricity Ombudsman, in an appeal against the order passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (Central Region).

2. The respondent herein had availed a three-phase service connection with Consumer No. 16452 under the LT VI F tariff for one of their tower sites at Nellad. Later, the respondent applied on 30.12.2009, for an additional load of 11 kW to the existing load of 11 kW for the mobile tower erected.

3. Though an amount of Rs. 4,34,700/- was remitted by the respondent/consumer towards the estimate, the installation of the transformer was delayed. Since there was a delay in sanctioning the additional load, the consumer requested the sanctioning of the same from the existing distribution system. Accordingly, the same was done. The consumer prayed for a refund of the alleged excess estimated amount collected.

4. The Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, before whom the respondent/consumer initially approached, directed the Board, through Ext.P1 order, to take immediate action to obtain sanction from the Forest Department for the construction of 400 meters 11 kV line and also for the installation of a 100 kVA transformer within one month.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the consumer had approached the State Electricity Ombudsman, who accepted the consumer's argument that, since no upgradation/system enhancement was done for eight years to cater to the additional load and since it was already done, there was no need for a separate transformer for providing the additional load. Accordingly, holding that the entire cost cannot be recovered from the consumer, the Ombudsman directed that only the proportionate expenditure of Rs. 88,091/-, i.e., 22% (a load of 22 kVA was connected to the 100 kVA transformer for the consumer) of the actual cost of Rs. 4,00,413/- incurred for the erection and drawal of 450 meters 11 kV line need be realised from the consumer and the excess amount of Rs.3,46,609/- remitted shall be refunded or adjusted in the future bills and accordingly, the appeal filed by the consumer was allowed.

6. The Board has filed the present writ petition contending that the Ombudsman has gone wrong in directing the estimated amount remitted by the respondent/consumer. They argue that the additional power allocation to the extent of 11 kW was sanctioned as per the system development work by drawing 400 meters of 11 kW overhead line and the installation of a 100 kVA Transformer at the mobile tower site. The delay occurred only because 200 meters of the route passed through a reserved forest, for which permission had to be obtained. It is on the request from the petitioner that the additional power demand of 11kV was arranged by rearrangements from the nearest distribution transformer. The said rearrangements had resulted in voltage problems and complaints from other consumers. Since the installation of the transformer was on account of the application made by the petitioner, there was no justification for giving any reduction in the estimated cost.

7. The specific case of the Board that the additional load was initially granted by making rearrangements in the distribution system, and it was not because the installation of a transformer was not required. Since this contention, going to the root of the matter, was not considered by the Ombudsman ( probably not raised), I am inclined to set aside Ext.P2 order and direct the State Electricity Ombudsman to re-hear Appeal Petition No. P/012/2019, after hearing the Board and the respondent, and pass appropriate orders in a