By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Bereft of unnecessary details the case of complainant is that he is a consumer of electricity supply under opposite party for agricultural purpose. When complainant approached opposite party in 1994 to pay current charges opposite party informed him that electricity charges for paddy cultivation is exempted by the Government and directed him to give a request before the Agricultural Officer, Krishi Bhavan of the concerned area. Complainant gave request to 4th opposite party and also send copies to second opposite party. He understands that he is included in the non-payment category thereafter. On 07-3-2002 opposite party disconnected the supply without any notice. On enquiries made by complainant he came to know from the office of first opposite party that an amount of Rs.8,975/- is due as arrears. Complainant gave a request to second opposite party to furnish details of the bill. Opposite party gave in writing that Rs.8,471/- is due as arrears inclusive of current charges and interest. Complainant submits that since he belongs to the exempted category he need not pay any charges and that current charges are to be paid by Krishi Bhavan. He alleges that opposite party has disconnected the supply without notice and sufficient grounds and has committed deficiency in service. Hence this complaint to direct opposite parties to restore the supply, to cancel the bill for Rs.8,471/-, in the alternative to include complainant in the exempted category from 1994 onwards, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.<br /> 2. Second opposite party has filed version on behalf of Kerala State Electricity Board. Admitting the complainant to be a consumer for agricultural purpose with effect from 19-4-1982 it is submitted that opposite party has never advised complainant not to pay current charges. Opposite party denies receiving any letter in 1994 in regard to request for including complainant in exempted category. Complainant has defaulted payment of current charges from 1994 onwards. An amount of Rs.8,471/- is due as arrears from 1/94 to 11/2000 which includes current charges and interest. The details of calculation is submitted in the version. Inspite of repeated directions complainant has not paid the charges, and the supply was disconnected on 07-3-02. As per the list received from Krishi Bhavan complainant was included in the exempted category for the period 01-01-01 to 31-3-02. No intimations have been received prior to that. No payment was received from Krishi Bhavan on behalf of complainant upto 2000. Complainant is therefore entitled for exemption from 01-01-2001 onwards only. There is no deficiency in service since the supply was disconnected for non-payment of charges.<br /> 3. Fourth opposite party who is the Agricultural Officer of Krishi Bhavan has filed version specifically denying that no application was received from complainant in 1994 for including him in the exempted category. As per G.O.(MS)No.311/95 dated, 31-8-95 a Scheme was introduced by Agricultural Department for the benefit of paddy growers by providing free electricity to them. Applications were called for from eligible farmers in order to implement the Scheme. Complainant filed application on 05-3-1996. the list of farmers were forwarded to the Assistant Director of Agriculture and then to the Principal Agricultural Officer, Malappuram on 19-3-1996. The claim of complainant prior to March, 1996 is in no way sustainable. As per the Scheme upto 31-3-1998 electricity charges payable by the eligible consumer was to be paid to the Electricity Board directly by the Principal Agricultural Officer. 4th opposite party is not aware whether electricity charges were due from complainant during this period. The above mentioned Scheme underwent a change as per G.O.No.8340/P.A. 3/98AD dated, 05-5-1998. As per this order from 01-4-1998 consumers were directed to pay electricity charges tot he Electricity Board directly and thereafter had to get it reimbursed from the concerned Agricultural Officer, on production of invoice. During the relevant period also complainant did not approach Krishi Bhavan with any invoice evidencing payment of electricity charges. As such complainant is not eligible to get benefit of the Scheme during this period. The Scheme was again changed by the Government. As per the order Agricultural Officers were directed to prepare a statement showing the details of farmers eligible for exemption and forward the same to the concerned electricity office. It was also directed that Agricultural Officers were to pay the electricity charges of the eligible farmers directly to the Electricity Board through invoice. When the Scheme was introduced the Agricultural Officer put up necessary notices on the notice board informing public. The new arrangement of the Scheme was given wide publicity by Government through media. However complainant failed to make any application to include him in the list. It is to be noted that during the period 01-4-1998 the complainant has not approached the Krishi Bhavan with any claim. In these circumstances there was no occasion for 4th opposite party to send the name of complainant to the Electricity Office. The Scheme has been floated for benefit of farmers and complainant has not paid any consideration and hence he is not a consumer. The services availed were only gratuitous and hence complainant is not eligible for any relief from 4th opposite party.<br /> 4. Evidence consists of affidavit filed by complainant and Exts.A1 to A3 marked on his side. Second opposite party has filed counter affidavit on behalf of opposite parties one to three. No documents marked on behalf of these opposite parties. Fourth opposite party has not filed counter affidavit. Exts.B1 and B2 marked on the side of 4th opposite party.<br /> 5. Points for consideration:-<br /> (i) Whether complainant is a consumer.<br /> (ii) Whether opposite parties are deficient in service.<br /> (iii) If so, reliefs and costs.<br /> 6. Point (i):-<br /> 4th opposite party disputes the complainant to be a consumer. It is contended by 4th opposite party that a Scheme was floated by the Government for benefit of farmers, and that complainant has not paid any consideration for availing the benefit or the service under the Scheme. The service if any was rendered as a gratuitous one and therefore complainant is not a consumer. Admittedly complainant herein has not paid any consideration to 4th opposite party. From the averments it can be seen that complainant has no legally vested right to be included in the category of farmers exempted from paying electricity charges. After fling application by the consumer-farmer the same has to be approved by concerned authorities. Only after receiving application and scrutiny of the eligibility does the consumer become included in the exempted category. For this no fee is paid. So the Scheme was only an incentive or concession intended to promote paddy cultivation. Whether consumer-farmer can be included in the Scheme is within the discretion of the State Government. In our view availing the benefit of the Scheme if any would not amount to hiring of service for consideration as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. We therefore hold that complainant is not a consumer as against 4th opposite party. Complainant is definitely a consumer in regard to services availed for supply of electricity under opposite parties one to three.<br /> 7. Point (ii):-<br /> Complainant disputes the electricity charges of Rs.8,471/- demanded by opposite parties one to three. It is his contention that he belongs to the exempted category from 1994 onwards. Though complainant contends that he submitted application before opposite parties in 1994 to include him in exempted category complainant has failed to substantiate his contention by necessary documents or reliable evidence. In Ext.A1 which is a letter issued to opposite party after disconnection of his electricity supply, complainant has stated that he preferred application for benefit of exemption in January 1996. Further as per the version of fourth opposite party the Scheme was implemented only in March, 1996. Therefore it is clear that complainant has defaulted paying current charges without any cause from 1994 to 1996. Even though 4th opposite party admits receiving application from complainant on 05-3-1996, there is no evidence before us to show that complainant was included in the exempted category during the period 1996 to 2001. Ext.B1 and B2 are the list produced by 4th opposite party. As per Ext.B1 and B2 complainant was included in exempted category for the period 01-01-2001 to 31-3-2001 and thereafter for the period 01-4-2001 to 31-3-2002, respectively. Complainant has failed to establish and prove that he belonged to the exempted category prior to 01-01-2001.<br /> 8. The disputed amount is the electricity charges for the period 1/94 to 11/2000 which includes surcharge also. Electricity being a public distribution system no person can be allowed to consume energy free unless exempted as per rules and regulations. The burden to prove that complainant is included in the exempted category lies upon the complainant. The supply has been disconnected for non payment of electricity charges. We are not able to find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties one to three. What we are able to infer from the contentions put forward by complainant is that, the complainant after submitting the application to be included in the Scheme has not pursued his application or sought confirmation of the fact whether he has been included in the list of eligible farmers. Without doing this he has opted not to pay the current charges. Moreover, the Scheme has undergone many changes in its' implementation whereby consumers ought to have been vigilant to avail the benefit of the Scheme. The contention of the complainant that he is exempted from paying charges from 1994 onwards is totally baseless and untenable because the Scheme itself was implemented only in 1996. For the foregoing reasons we do not find any merits in the case of the complainant. In the counter affidavit opposite party has claimed surcharges of Rs.5,192/- which is for the period 4/2002 to 3/2008. This complaint was filed on 04-5-2002. In our view, it is not proper to direct the complainant to pay surcharges during the period when this complaint is pending. Further from 01-01-2001 onwards complainant has been included in exempted category also. So we consider that complainant ought to be relieved of the burden of paying surcharges for the period 5/2002 to 3/2008 and thereafter. We hold complainant is liable to pay Rs.8,471/- only. We also consider that complainant is to be given instalment facility to remit the amount.<br /> 9. In the result, we dismiss the complaint with direction to opposite party to give complainant instalment facility of at least three instalments to remit Rs.8,471/-(Rupees Eight thousand four hundred and seventy one only).<br /> Dated this 25th day of September, 2008.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A3<br /> Ext.A1 : Request dated, 05-4-2002 by complainant to A.E.O., Kadampuzha.<br /> Ext.A2 : Press cutting dated, January, 1996.<br /> Ext.A3 : Photo copy of the provisional invoice card relating to consumer No.2519<br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 and B2<br /> Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the list of farmers whose current charge to be remitted<br /> for the period from 01-01-2001 to 31-3-2001 submitted by Assistant<br /> Engineer, K.S.E.B., Kadampuzha.<br /> Ext.B2 : Photo copy of the list of farmers whose current charge to be remitted<br /> for the period from 01-4-2001 to 31-3-2002 submitted by Assistant<br /> Engineer, K.S.E.B., Kadampuzha.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER