Printable Format66-109. Variations from schedule of rates. No common carrier or public utility governed by the provisions of this act shall, knowingly or willfully, charge, demand, collect or receive a greater or less compensation for the same class of service performed by it within the state, or for any service in connection therewith, than is specified in the printed schedules or classifications, including schedules of joint rates; or demand, collect or receive any rate, joint rate, toll, fare or charge not specified in such schedule or classification: Provided, That rates different from those specified in the printed schedule or classification of rates may be charged by any public utility, street or interurban railway, by agreement with the customer, in cases of charity, emergency, festivity or public entertainment: Provided, That any utility governed by the provisions of this act may grant to the officers, employees and agents of such utilities free or reduced rates or service upon like terms and in the same manner as is now provided by law relating to common carriers.
History: L. 1911, ch. 238, ยง 12; May 22; R.S. 1923, 66-109.
Cross References to Related Sections:
Reparations act, see 66-154a et seq.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Act prohibits charging higher rates than those shown by schedules. City of Emporia v. Telephone Co., 90 Kan. 118, 126, 133 P. 858.
2. Tariffs filed with public utilities commission control; special contract void. Mollohan v. Railway Co., 97 Kan. 51, 55, 154 P. 248.
3. Privilege of unloading en route must be included in schedules. Mollohan v. Railway Co., 97 Kan. 51, 154 P. 248.
4. All discrimination and preferences in rates forbidden by utilities act. Milling Co. v. Postal Telegraph Co., 101 Kan. 307, 309, 166 P. 493.
5. Changes and modification of rates must be filed with commission. Railroad and Light Co. v. Court of Industrial Relations, 113 Kan. 217, 230, 214 P. 797, 804.
6. Rate cannot be changed without filing of schedule. Empire Natural Gas Co. v. Thorp, 121 Kan. 116, 118, 245 P. 1058.
7. Provision has no effect on interstate rates. Missouri Pac. Rld. Co. v. Red Star Milling Co., 122 Kan. 122, 125, 251 P. 417.
8. Full tariff rate must be paid regardless of error. Kansas Electric Power Co. v. Thomas, 123 Kan. 321, 323, 255 P. 33.
9. Commission cannot by approval limit liability of telegraph company for error in intrastate message. McNally Pittsburg Mfg. Corp. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 186 Kan. 709, 713, 353 P.2d 199.
10. Action to recover intrastate railroad-car rental charges; charges legal under commission's order. Keeler Co. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. Rly. Co., 187 Kan. 125, 128, 354 P.2d 368.
11. Changes in private contract rates considered (dissenting opinion). Kansas Power & Light Co. v. Mobil Oil Co., 198 Kan. 556, 563, 426 P.2d 60.
12. Section cited; rates established reasonable except as to the imposition of a uniform late penalty. Jones v. Kansas Gas and Electric Co., 222 Kan. 390, 399, 565 P.2d 597.
13. Utility prohibited from charging rates greater or less than in schedule on file with K.C.C. Sunflower Pipeline Co. v. Kansas Corporation Commission, 5 Kan. App. 2d 715, 718, 719, 722, 624 P.2d 466.
14. KCC may not allow motor carriers to charge less than maximum rates without filing new tariff. Oilfield Fluid Motor Carriers v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 234 Kan. 983, 990, 677 P.2d 982 (1984).
15. Power to substitute rates as operating prospectively rather than retrospectively examined. Kansas Gas & Electric Co. v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 14 Kan. App. 2d 527, 533, 794 P.2d 1165 (1990).
16. No discrimination in failure to disclose and apply tariff to plaintiff; legally filed tariff constitutes constructive notice. Grindsted Products, Inc. v. Kansas Corporation Comm'n, 262 Kan. 294, 297, 299, 937 P.2d 1 (1997).
17. Recovery for sales of natural gas in plaintiff's certificated service area would not constitute retroactive rate making. United Cities Gas Co. v. Brock Exploration Co., 995 F. Supp. 1284, 1293 (1998).
18. State agency's interpretation of statute which agency is responsible to interpret is entitled to judicial deference and applied in case. Auten v. Kansas Corp. Comm'n, 27 Kan. App. 2d 252, 3 P.3d 86 (2000).