KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

APPEAL No.  383/2006

JUDGMENT DATED:  23-02-2010

PRESENT:

SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN                    : JUDICIAL  MEMBER

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA                 :  MEMBER

APPELLANTS

1.         The Executive Engineer,

Electrical Division,

K.S.E. Board, Kunnamkulam

2          K.S.E. Board rep. by its Secretary,

Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

     (Rep. by Adv. Sri. P.B. Asokan)

                        Vs

RESPONDENTS

1.         Dr. C.V. Pazhanimala,

            C.P. Bhavan, Kaniyambal Road, Kunnamkulam.

2.         The Village Officer,

            Village Office, Kunnamkulam.

3.         The Tahsildar,

            Talappilly Taluk,

            Wadakkanchery, Thrissur Dist.

4.         The District Collector,

            Thrissur.

                (R2 to R4 rep. by Sri. N.C. Priyan, Addl. Govt. Pleader)

JUDGMENT

SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA:    MEMBER

                   This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Thrissur in OP No. 1571/04.  The opposite parties are the appellants.  In short, the demand notice was issued to the complainant on 26-11-2004 calling upon him to pay Rs. 3,295/-.  According to the complainant, he has not kept any arrears and no amount is payable.  His consumer No. 2748 and he have been paid charges punctually.  Now revenue recovery proceedings are being taken for realization of the above amount.  Hence it is prayed that there may be an injunction against the respondents and direct to cancel the impugned bill and to pay Rs. 2,500/- towards compensation and also cost. 

          2.      The first and second opposite parties filed their version and contended that the petition is not maintainable as per law.  As per the records of the electrical section, he availed electric connection with Consumer No. 2416/CKD a tenant in the building owned by Sri. Viswanathan, Melepurackal  House, Chavakkad to run a  clinic named C.P clinic.  The date of connection is 15-05-1979.  The consumer is a defaulter in paying current charges from 10/01 onwards.  As the electric connection was availed by the petitioner as a tenant, it is the responsibility of the petitioner to get the electric connection dismantled and closed his accounts as soon as he vacated the building.  This was not done.  Nobody was remitting the current charges from 10/01 onwards, dues accrued in the connection.  The service connection was disconnected on 11/03 and finally dismantled on 05-06-2004 after observing all formalities as per the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy.  When all the departmental efforts failed to recover the dues amounting to Rs. 3,295/- revenue recovery proceedings were initiated against the consumer as per Clause No. 9 of LT service connection agreement executed by the consumer.  In the affidavit, filed by the petitioner it was stated that his consumer number was 2748 and no dues are pending on the connection.  In fact, the consumer number stands in the name of Smt. Ammini, Panikkaveettil House, Chavakkad which is under LT I a domestic tariff.  The petition may be dismissed with costs.

          3.      Respondents 3, 4 and 5 have also filed counter and contended that it is not maintainable.  The Forum is not having any jurisdiction to interfere with revenue recovery proceedings.  The Consumer Forum cannot pass any injunction against taking revenue recovery proceedings.  The petitioner has equal and efficacious remedy.   The petition may be dismissed with costs.

          4.      The Forum below consider the following points:

1.                Whether the consumer forum has got jurisdiction to interfere with revenue recovery proceedings?

2.                Relief and costs.

5.      The evidence consisted of Ext.P1 to P4 and R1 and F2.  Forum found that according to the petitioner, the last bill served on him was dated 20-12-2004 marked.  Ext.P3 for Rs. 1,244/-, which was paid and evidenced by receipt No. 042065 marked Ext.P4.  That means even though he gave Ext.P1 letter on 30-06-1996, he has paid charges inclusive of December 2004.  That means he did not keep anything as arrears as rightly submitted by him at the time of leaving.  In the circumstances, the action of the respondents 1 and 2 is high handed, illegal and unjustifiable.   The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to cancel any bill issued against the consumer on the basis of which the revenue recovery proceedings are taken and respondents 3 to 5 are directed not to proceed with the revenue recovery proceedings further.  The petitioner is entitled to get Rs. 2,000/- as compensation from respondents 1 and 2 and also costs of Rs. 1,500/-.  The respondents 3 to 5 are exonerated from payment. Appellants preferred this appeal from the above impugned order. 

6.      On this day, this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing, the Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of appeal memorandum that the finding of the Forum below is illegal and without observing the strict law and evidence.  It is not legally sustainable.  The prayer is to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below.  The most important point in this case is that whether the Forum is not having any jurisdiction to restrain the proceedings taken by the opposite parties 3 to 5 under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act.  No Civil Court having the jurisdiction to interfere in the proceedings taken by the revenue recovery authorities as per the Revenue Recovery Act.  But the Consumer Fora is par from a Civil Court.  Anyway in this case, the Forum below restrained the first and second opposite parties to proceed under the Revenue Recovery Act and anyway it is a question not considering here in the absence of the respondent/complainant who reported to died.  There is no proper representation to him.  In other words, as per the law the complainant/respondent is entitled to pay the bill of Rs. 2,500/-.  It is his arrears.  He approached the Forum below for an immediate remedy.  He abused the process of Justice for his immediate crisis.  But any way he is legally liable to pay this amount.  We do not know why the Forum below passed such an impugned order.  It is not according to law and evidence.  It is not legally sustainable.

In the result, this appeal is allowed and set aside the order passed by the Forum below.  Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs.  The points of this appeal answered accordingly.

                                                       M.K. ABDULLA SONA:    MEMBER

                                        M.V. VISWANATHAN         : JUDICIAL  MEMBER