Appeal from the Order of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in the case of Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Koway Enterprises, Inc., No. A-00101115.
Val Pleet Wilson, with him, Herbert Somerson, for petitioner.
Michael C. Schnierle, Assistant Counsel, with him, Kenneth E. Nicely, Deputy Chief Counsel, and Charles F. Hoffman, Chief Counsel, for respondent.
Judges MacPhail, Colins and Palladino, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Palladino.
Koway Enterprises, Inc. (Petitioner) appeals from a Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) order canceling Petitioner's Certificate of Public Convenience (Certificate). We affirm.
On May 8, 1981, August 14, 1981, and August 28, 1981, the PUC adopted complaints against the Petitioner alleging violations of the Public Utility Code (Code).*fn1 The alleged violations included overcharging passengers on three occasions and operating an unsafe vehicle twice. Each complaint set forth the alleged violation and the Code section violated and each was served on Petitioner by certified mail. No appeal was taken from any complaint adopted and a final order was entered each time.
Each violation carried with it a fine which went unpaid by the Petitioner. On April 22, 1982, the PUC adopted an Order to Show Cause why Petitioner's Certificate should not be cancelled. The order was served on Petitioner by certified mail on May 11, 1982.
On August 27, 1982, after receiving no response from the Petitioner, the PUC adopted a Default Order
in which it cancelled Petitioner's Certificate. This order was entered on September 14, 1982.
No answer was filed and no appeal was taken from any of the foregoing PUC actions until September 29, 1982, when Petitioner's counsel sent the PUC a letter requesting the relevant rules and regulations so that he could file an answer to the Order to Show Cause. Petitioner's counsel also enclosed payment for all outstanding fines against the Petitioner.
Inasmuch as Petitioner never appealed any of the adopted complaints and neither responded to nor appealed the Order to Show Cause, any substantive arguments on the underlying violations have been waived. The only issues reviewable at this time are Petitioner's alleged lack of ...