SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.

Complaint filed seeking to quash revenue recovery proceedings for declaration, injunction restraining the 3^rd opp.party from initiating RR proceedings, compensation and costs.

          The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

          The complainant has been running a Rice Mill under the name and style St. Mary’s Rice Mill  with view of earning  his livelihood  The mill was being run by he  himself, under self employment.  The complainant  for this purpose  availed electric power connection with Consumer No. RLA 474 and the electricity charges were being paid promptly on receipt of bills. The complainant had been  thinking of winding up   the business from   2001 onwards, since the business was not profitable .  While so, on 12.11.2001 the first opp.party issued  a bill for Rs.1,982/-  directing the complainant to pay  this amount  on or before 26.11.2001failing which  the supply will be disconnected.   There was only a meager business during this period.   Two days after the receipt of the bill the complainant submitted a written complaint to the 1^st opp.party challenging the correctness of the bill  and issuance of fresh bill.     But no action was taken in this regard by the first opp.party.  Though the complainant  submitted complaint about the disputed bill the 1^st opp.party did not take any action.  Therefore he  sought for disconnection and filed necessary application for disconnection with effect from  the month of December 2001.  The application was given by the complainant personally  to the then Asst. Engineer of the Thenmala Office. No action was taken in  pursuant to that  application a also.     From the month of November 2001 onwards he closed down his business and closed the mill . On 20.1.2003  the 1^st opp.party sent a letter to the complainant stating that the connection has been disconnected for non payment of the bill and if the amount  is not paid within 15 days the  connection will be dismantled .  Since the complainant  was not interested to continue the connection  he has not paid the bill.   After that the opp.party dismantled the connection by the end of February 2003.   There was  absolute  delay  on the side  of the opp.party in making disconnection within six months of application or on no payment of the bill.   Since the connection was disconnected and dismantled for the reason of non payment of the complainant is under no liability   to pay any  more bills or any other amount to the opp.party except the bill amount of November 2001.  There was no consumption of energy since the month of November 2001   Therefore, the opp.party has no right  to levy any amount from the complainant  Suppressing  these facts the 1^st opp.party has initiated RR proceedings through the 3^rd opp.party for recovery of Rs.19,641/- .  In fact the complainant  did not owe this amount .  At the most   he is liable to pay  only the  dispute bill  amount of Rs.1982/- and the minimum charges  for the month of  November and December 2001.  By initiating RR proceedings the first opp.party has taken  coercive steps against the complainant for remitting a huge amount.  It is undoubtedly an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party.   Hence the complaint.

The opp.parties 1 and 2 have filed a join version contending, interalis that the complaint is maintainable either in law or on facts.   The complainant was a 3 phase consumer of the opp.party under Electrical Section, Thenmala with Consumer No. RLA 474 .   The connected load is as 10 KW and the consumer was under Industrial Tariff. The complain ant was paying the monthly current charge up to 9/2001.    For the month of 10/2001   a sum of Rs.893 was remitted.  Therefore during 11/2001  a bill for Rs.1982/- was issued to the complainant  which is for the actual consumption of electricity.  No complaint   regarding   charging of excess amount  received from  the complainant.   The complainant was  of the habits of not remitting the current charge before the last date for disconnection and the complainant used to remit the current charge only after  physically disconnecting his service  after the due date of disconnection.  The service was put under disconnection during November 2001 due to non payment of current charges.  It is true that the complainant has closed  his business during December 2001.   As the  service remained under disconnection for more than 6 months  the complainant was to be served  with a dismantling notice.   During the time  the complainant  was trying  to reopen his  business  and every month he was assuring  that he would be remitting the arrears.     But as no more time can be given the consumer was finally served with dismantling notice on 20.1.2003.  As the dues were not  received within the stipulated time the service was dismantled during 2/2003.  The delay occurred in sending the dismantling notice was procedural only  The service was finally dismantled on 26.3.2003 when a service is dismantled the current charge defaulted plus the fixed charge  for the remaining  period are to be collected from the consumer.   In this case though there was no consumption from December 2001 fixed charges  for the connected load of 10 KW.  was to be collected.   As the complainant did not remit the amount  the only remedy for the Board was to initiate the RR Proceedings.   There is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.  Hence they prays to dismiss the complaint.

          The 3^rd opp.party filed a separate version also contending that  the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.   The executive Engineer, Electrical Division sent a requisition dated 6.1.2004 to the District Collector to realize an amount of Rs.19,641/- from the complainant.  Based on the requisition the District Collector issued RRC No. RII 5882/04 dated 11.2.2004  to realize the defaulted amount with collection charge from the complainant.  The Tahasildar issued demand notice under Section 7and 34 of Kerala Revenue Recovery Act  through the Village Officer Ariancavu.   Instead of remitting the dues the complainant approached  Government for instalment  payments and the same was granted  to him vide order No.83318/S2/2004/RD dated 21.12.2004 by the Principal Secretary to the Government.    The installment facility granted to him was also violated by the complainant.  Hence he filed a consumer  case before this Forum.  The complainant is willfully evading from the payment even after availing instalment facilities from Government .  This complaint is not maintainable  under the RR Act and Consumer Protection Act.  Notices under section 80 of CPC has not been served to the opp.parties.  Hence  the 3^rd opp.party preys to dismiss the complaint.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether the complaint is maintainable.

2.     Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties

3.     Reliefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1 is examined.   Ext.P1 to P6 are marked

For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined.

POINTS;

          At the very out set it is to be stated that this forum has no jurisdiction to allow the main prayer in the complaint.   The 1^st prayer is to quash the Revenue Recovery Proceedings initiated in this case by the District Collector, Kollam at the instance of opp.party 1 and the 3^rd prayer is to restrain opp.party 3 from initiating any steps for Revenue Recovery against the complainant.   The 2^nd prayer is for a declaration.  It is well settled that under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act no Civil Court or other authority has jurisdiction to interfere with the Revenue Recovery Proceedings already initiated or grant injunction to restrain  the Revenue Recovery Proceedings.

          The learned counsel for the complainant hass argued that this complaint is based on deficiency in service on the side of the opp.parties 1 and 2 and so it is maintainable.  Tthat argument does not appeal to us.  Had the complaint been filed prior to the initiation of the Revenue Recovery Proceedings that argument could have been accepted.  In our view the issue as to whether or not there is  deficiency in service can be considered only.  When this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.

The learned Government pleader argued that there is suppression of  material facts.  According to him the complainant after initiation of Revenue Recovery Proceedings approached the Government seeking instalment payment which was allowed by the Government  but again committed default and  it was thereafter that this complaint was filed.  Whatever that  be the Revenue Recovery Proceedings are pending is obvious from Ext.P4 and the main relief sought for in the complaint is quashing of Revenue Recovery Proceedings pending.   The Revenue Recovery Act bars jurisdiction of Civil Courts and other authorities to adjudicate matters involved in Revenue Recovery Proceedings.  After careful consideration of the evidence we hold that  this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  Point found accordingly.

In the result the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed.  No costs.

            Dated this the 31^st day of October 2009.

                                                                                   .

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant:

  PW.1. – M.J. Mathews

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Disputed bill

P2. – Prior bills

P3. – Dismandling notice

P4.- R.R. notice

P5. – Letter sent to Electricity Minister

P6. – Letter sent to Revenue Minister

List of witnesses for the opp.party

DW.1. -  Asha Ashok

List of documents for the opp.party : NIL