The case of complainant is that the complainant is a consumer of respondents vide consumer No.3072. The respondent issued a bill dated 11.11.2003 demanding to pay Rs.77,295/-. The period stated as till 3/01. The complainant is running the business for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. The bill is illegal and the complainant has no arrears. There is no explanation in the bill regarding the reading and other connected matters. The bill is time barred and complainant is not liable to pay the bill amount. Hence the complaint. 

 

            2. The averments in the counter are that the connection to consumer No.3072 is in the name of A.V. Joseph and comes under VII (A) Tariff. Since the connection is not in the name of complainant and in the name of A.V. Joseph the complaint has the defect of non-joinder of necessary of parties. The respondents did not take any action against the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent. It is true that a bill was issued to collect arrears in consumer No.3072. The amount required to pay under the card system was paid. The consumer never paid any amount towards electricity charges from 1994 to 1999. The respondent has every right to disconnect the power supply if bill amount is not paid. The consumer did not pay additional bills also. The consumer is liable to pay the amount stated in the notice.  Hence dismiss the complaint.

 

            3. The respondents filed an additional counter stating that the connection to consumer No.3072 comes under LT VII (A) Tariff and bill is issuing for industrial connection. The complainant is not running business as a means of livelihood. He is running the business for commercial purpose and does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant is not entitled for injunction as per Section 145 of Indian Electricity Act 2003. Hence dismiss the complaint.

 

            4. The points for consideration are:

(1)   Is the complaint maintainable before the Forum?

(2)   If so, is there any deficiency in service committed by respondents?

(3)   Other reliefs and costs.

 

            5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2, deposition of PW1 and Ext. R1.

 

            6. Points: According to the complainant, he is conducting a cool bar for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. But the respondents disputed this view and stated that the complainant is running the business not for the purpose of livelihood by means of self-employment but for commercial purposes. In order to prove this aspect the complainant is examined as PW1. During cross-examination he deposed that he is conducting the tea shop and he and his son are working in it. No other workers are there. The counsel for respondent asked during cross-examination whether any document produced to show that he is conducting the hotel by means of self-employment. He answered no documents produced. There is not at all such document to show that he is conducting the business for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. There is nothing to corroborate the evidence of complainant that he is running the tea shop for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. So the complaint is found maintainable before the Forum.

 

            7. The next point to be considered is deficiency in service of respondents if any. Ext. P1 is the notice under challenge. It shows that till 3/01 there is arrears of Rs.77,295/- towards electricity charges. The bill is dated 11.11.03. According to the complainant he is not liable to pay any amount since it is barred by limitation. It is true that Sections 1 to 120 and Section 122 to 185 of Indian Electricity Act came into force on 10.6.2003. So there is no doubt that Section 56 came into force before 11.11.03, the date of issuance of Ext. P1 notice. As per Section 56(2) no sum due from any consumer under the Section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date of when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of energy. According to the respondents from 1994 onwards there is arrears in payment of charges. They also stated that nothing is paid by the complainant. Ext. P2 is the calculation statement issued by respondent to complainant. It shows that the opening balance on 4/94 as 3427.86. Likewise the entire arrears are shown and towards 2000 to 2001 there was an arrear of Rs.77,295.42. Ext. P1 notice was issued to recover this amount. So Section 56(2) of Indian Electricity Act 2003 will not hit. So the complainant is liable to pay the amount stated in Ext. P1 notice.

 

            8. In the counter it is stated that consumer did not pay normal charges as well as additional charges. They issued Ext. P1 notice only on 11.11.2003 demanding such a huge amount. In spite of this amount is pending they did not even disconnect the supply. This shows a serious service deficiency on the part of Corporation and the Corporation is not entitled for interest to Ext. P1 amount. The respondent did not give any explanation regarding disconnection of power supply. 

 

            9. In the result, complaint is dismissed and the complainant is directed to pay the Ext. P1 notice amount within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.