O R D E R

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.

Case of the petitioner's is as follows:

Petitioner is a consumer of the first opposite party with vide Consumer No. 5872. The connection of the petitioner is for his proprietory industrial unit. According to the petitioner he is running the said unit exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. According to the petitioner he started his unit in February 1998 by availing electricity connection with consumer No. 5872 by making a

-2-

security deposit of Rs. 150/-. Subsequently on 31..3..98 for enhancing power connection the first opposite party issued another power connection with consumer No. 6752 by making security deposit of Rs. 16,200/-. Later on 20..6..98 first opposite party merged consumer No. 6752 with consumer No. 5872 and informed the petitioner. Thereafter petitioner is having only one Consumer number ie. 5872. The petitioner states that on 30..7..2002 the first opposite party informed the petitioner that security deposit made for consumer No. 5872 is not sufficient based on his average consumption. So, the first opposite party called upon the petitioner to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 6200/-. So, the total deposit made by the petitioner is Rs. 22,550/-. According to the petitioner due to the heavy loss in the business of the petitioner he closed his unit on 24..12..2004. The petitioner informed the closure of the unit to the first opposite party and requested to disconnect the electric connection. The first opposite party informed the petitioner, that since the connection being an industrial unit, he has to pay the minimum guarantee charges till 2/05 and electric connection can be disconnected only after that date. The petitioner states that accordingly the first opposite party issued bill for the period of 12/2004 for an amount of Rs. 5616/-, for the period of 1/05 for an amount of Rs. 5593/-, for the period of 2/05 for an amount of Rs. 5577/-, for the period of 3/05 for an amount of Rs. 1785/-. The petitioner states that for the period of 3/05 only fixed charge, as the minimum guarantee was levied to the petitioner. The petitioner states that since there is an amount of Rs. 22,550/- with the first opposite party as security deposit, the petitioner was informed that the amount due to the K.S.E.B will be adjusted from the security deposit and he will get a refund of Rs. 3979/- from KSEB. The petitioner states that

-3-

while he was waiting for the refund of the amount he was received with an adjustment notice dated. 25..10..2006 from the 4^th opposite party making a demand of Rs. 46,507/- as arrears of electric charges. Petitioner states that no notice was issued to him before the demand notice. So, according to him the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency of service . So, he prays for a direction to the first and second opposite party to cancel the illegal bill for an amount of Rs. 46507/- along with cost of the proceedings.

The opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. Opposite party conteted that petitioner was a consumer with consumer No. 5872 under LT IV industrial category and said connection was dismantled on 4..1..2006 due to the non payment of current charges. So, the opposite party contented that since he is not a consumer of the opposite party the forum has no jurisdiction. The opposite party further contented that since R.R proceedings are started by District Collector and the Forum has no jurisdiction in to to entertain the petition.

So the petition is to be dismissed. According to the opposite party the connection was given to the petitioner during February 1998 for which cash deposit of Rs. 100/- was collected on 10..11..94. The petitioner availed another electric connection on 25..4..98 with consumer No. 6752 under LT IV category by remitting a cash deposit of Rs. 16,200/-. The said connection was provided on miimum guarantee basis and an agreement was executed by the petitioner in which it was agreed to pay the minimum guarantee amount till 25..4..2005 even if he is not using electricity for the industry. Thus an amount of Rs. 5539/- per month has to be paid by the consumer up to 25..4..2005 as per minimum guarantee agreement. During July, 1998 Consumer No. 6752 was

-4-

dismantled and no bills were issued from 7/1998 on wards. But, the cash deposit of Rs. 16,200/- inrespect of Consumer No. 6752 was not carried over to the account of Consumer No. 5872 and thus the amount was there till with the account of consumer No. 6752. Another cash deposit of Rs. 6350 inrespect of Rs. 5802 collected from the petitioner. The opposite party contented that the petitioner was not informed about the closure of the unit to the first opposite party and not requested for disconnection of supply as alleged in the petition. The opposite party contented that the issuance of the bill is legal and notices were issued to the petitioner since the petitioner has not remitted the amount demanded the second opposite party filed application to the District Collector, Kottayam for initiating Revenue Recovery proceedings to realise the amount. According to the opposite party the petition is liable to pay recalculated arrear of Rs. 25,282/- to the opposite party. So, the opposite party contented that there is no deficiency of service on their part so, the petition is to be dismissed with their costs.

Points for determinations are:

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

ii) Reliefs and costs?

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 and A2 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B4 documents on the side of the opposite party.

Point No. 1

Petitioner produced the demand notice Dtd: 25..10..2006 and said document is marked as Ext. A1. Demand notice under section 7 of the R.R Act is produced and said

-5-

document is marked as Ext. A2. From Ext. A1 and A2 it can be seen that R.R proceedings are initiated against the petitioner by the District Collector, Kottayam. Keeping reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon”ble State Commission in appeal No. 840/98 (P.M Balakrishnan Nair Vs. Secretary KSEB and others) We are of the opinion that the petition is not maintainable before this Forum. In the said decision Hon'ble State Commission stated that in cases were R.R proceedings are initiated no reliefs can be granted without holding that the R.R proceedings are not sustainable under law. The jurisdiction to question the R.R proceedings vests to the Civil courts that too only on limited grounds. When such is the position a contention with respect to the proceedings taken by the proper authority under R.R Act cannot be treated as Consumer Disputes and in such cases the consumer Forum cannot entertain the matter. Lending support of the said decision rendered by our own state commission. We are of the opinion that the petition is not maintainable before the for a. So, point No. 1 is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

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

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of October, 2008.