Case of the petitioner's is as follows:

Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party Electricity Board. The 3^rd opposite party is the Deputy Registrar, Vaikom. According to the petitioner as a means of self employment he conducted a Coir Mill for the period from 1993 to 1999. During the year 1999 due to problems fced by Coir Industry the factory was closed the petitioner informed second opposite party with regard to closure of the industrial unit. Petitioner states that according to him there is no dues pending towards first and second opposite party. Second opposite party disconnected and dismantled electric connection to the

-2-

petitioners premises. On 7..11..2001 petitioner was served with a bill for a period from 2/99 to 12/01 for the amounts which is alleged to be due to the opposite party. Petitioner filed complaint to the second opposite party with regard to the said bill. Opposite party allowed instalment to the petitioner and thus petitioner remitted 4 equal monthly instalments for an amount of Rs. 2784/- petitioner states that after the remittance of the 4^th instalment second opposite party inform the petitioner that in future petitioner is not liable for remitting any amount as future instalment. Further more, opposite party informed the petitioner that they received application of disconnection and dismantling the equipment. On 24..11..2006 3^rd opposite party issued R.R notice to the petitioner demanding an amount of Rs. 41085/-. Petitioner states that said notice is a time barred notice and issuance of the said notice is a clear deficiency of service. So, he prays for cancellation of the bill Dtd: 24..11..2007 and also refund of the amount of Rs. 11136/- which is remitted by the petitioner. Petitioner also claims Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

First and second opposite party filed joint version and 3^rd opposite party filed their version. First and second opposite party contented that the petitioner is not a consumer and petition is not maintainable before the Forum. Petitioner availed the above electric connection under LT IV Industirial Tariff for a profit making business. Further more, as per section 72 of the RR Act Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.Opposite party contented that the petitioner availed electric connection on 6..3..91 under LT IV Tarif and remitted current charges up to 12/98. Monthly invoice for the period from 1/99 to 11/01 was served to the petitioner. now RR steps are taken for

-3-

realisation of the arrears of current charges amounting Rs. 40631/-. Opposite party contented that on 1/02 an arrear notice was served to the petitioner and petitioner approach the second opposite party and apply for instalment facility. Opposite party sanctioned the sane and 4 instalment up to 18..6..2002 were remitted by the petitioner. Petitioner neither requested for disconnection or dismantling the connection till 11/2001. According to the opposite party issuance of bill is as per law and no deficiency of service can be attributed against the first and second opposite party.

Third opposite party filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable they contented that the petition is not maintainable before this Forum. They issued notice under section 7 and 34 of RR Act as per the demand RR Act first and second opposite party. According to 3^rd opposite party they have discharged their duty as per the provisions of the Kerala RR Act there is no cause of action for the petitioner against 3^rd opposite party. So, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs.

Points for determinations are:

i) Petition is maintainable or not?

ii) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party ?

Iii) Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner and no document on the side of the opposite party.

Point No. 1

Petitioner produced notice issued under section 34 of R.R Act and said document

-4-

is marked as Ext. A2. Demand notice issued by the 3^rd opposite party is produced and marked as Ext. A2 (a). From Ext. A2 it can be seen that R.R proceedings are initiated against the petitioner. The Hon'ble State Commission, Kerala in Appeal No. 840/98 stated that when demand notice is issued Forum has no jurisdiction. We are also of the opinion that demand has now become basis for R.R proceedings and no relief can be granted without holding that the R.R proceedings is not sustainable under law. Jurisdiction to question to R.R proceedings vests with Civil Court that to on limited ground. When such is the position a contention with respect to the proceedings taken by proper authority under R.R Act cannot be treated as a consumer dispute and consumer Forum cannot got jurisdiction to entertain the matter questioning the R.R proceedings. Petitioner admitted that on 7..11..2001 petitioner served with a notice, issued by the opposite party, for the arrears for the period from 2/99 to 12/01. So cause of action for the petition had arised on 7..11..2001 petition is filed before the Forum only on 1..3..2007.As sper section 24 (a) Consumer Protection Act 1986 the District Forum shall not admit a complaint unles it is filed within 2 years from date on which the cause of action has arisen. So, on that ground also the petition is not maintainable. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that the petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. So point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

In view of the finding in point No. 1 petition is to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant Corrected by me and

-5-

pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of January, 2009.