KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 209/2009 JUDGMENT DATED: 16.08.2010 PRESENT: SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER 1. Secretary, KSEB, Vydhudhi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. : APPELLANTS 2. Assistant Exective Engineer, KSEB, Electrical Sub Division, Idukki. (By Adv:Sri.S.Balachandran) Vs. K.K.Prakash, Kavum Pirayil house, Ellackal P.O, Chithrapuram, : RESPONDENT Idukki. (By Adv:Sri.N.G.Mahesg) JUDGMENT SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellants 1 and 2 were the opposite parties 1 and 2 respectively and respondent was the complainant in CC.11/08 on the file of CDRF, Idukki. The complaint therein was filed alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in issuing P1 and P2 demand notices for realization of energy charges of Rs.5,187/- and Rs.1,776/- for the period from July 1989 to March 2004. The complainant claimed benefit under the Government order exempting him from payment of energy charges because he has been consuming energy for agricultural purpose. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version denying the alleged deficiency of service. They contended that the complainant has been given an agricultural connection; but he was not exempted from payment of electricity charges. It is further contended that his name was not included in the list of persons submitted by the agricultural officer to grant exemption from payment of energy charges. Thus, the opposite parties justified their action in issuing Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices for energy charges and also for initiating revenue recovery proceedings for realization of the said amount. Thus, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint in CC.11/08. Before the Forum below the complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 documents were marked on his side. From the side of the opposite parties DW1, Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Chithirapuram was examined. R1 to R8 documents were also produced and marked on the side of the opposite parties. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:22nd August 2008 directing the opposite party/KSEB to return the excess amount of Rs.6,963/- collected from the complainant as excess electric energy charge with a further direction to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.2000/-. Heard both sides. Admittedly, the complainant has been given electricity connection for agricultural purpose and he has been consuming electrical energy for that purpose from the year 1989 onwards. There is no case for the complainant that he remitted any amount towards the energy charges. The complainant being the consumer of electrical energy is legally bound to remit the energy charges for the energy consumed by him. It is also to be noted that the complainant being the consumer under the Electricity Board had executed agreement for payment of the energy charges. The opposite party is justified in demanding Electricity charges for the period from July 1989 till March 2004 covered by P1 and P2 demand notices. It is also to be noted that the aforesaid demand was made for Rs.5,187/- vide Ext.P1 demand notice dated:11/2/2002 and the demand for Rs.1,776/- was made vide demand notice dated:25/3/2004. Admittedly the complainant remitted those amounts covered by P1 and P2 documents in the year 2004. Thus, the aforesaid claim for arrears of energy charges from July 1989 onwards is not barred by limitation. It is a settled position that the period of limitation will start to run from the date of demand. At any rate, the complainant has already remitted the amounts covered by Exts.P1 and P2 demand notices. There was valid discharge of the demand made by the opposite party/KSEB. The case of the complainant is that he is entitled for exemption from payment of energy charges because of the fact that he has been consuming electrical energy for agriculture purpose. It is to be noticed that the complainant being a consumer of electrical energy is entitled for exemption from payment of energy charges only if his name is included in the list of the agriculturists who were exempted from payment of energy charges. It is also to be noted that the list of the exempted agriculturists is to be prepared by the concerned agricultural officer. But in the present case, the name of the complainant has not been included in the list of agriculturists. There is no piece of evidence available on record to show that the complainant has been exempted from payment of energy charges. On the other hand, R7 document would give an indication that the name of the complainant is not included in the list of the agriculturists who are entitled to get exemption from payment of energy charges. Thus, the claim of the complainant for exemption from payment of energy charges cannot be upheld. The Forum below has not considered the aforesaid relevant and important aspect of the case. So, this State Commission has no hesitation to hold that the complainant is not exempted from payment of energy charges for the electricity supplied to him for agricultural purpose. It is made clear that the complainant will be at liberty to approach the concerned agricultural officer to get exemption from payment of energy charges. Unless and until such an exemption is granted by the concerned agricultural officer, the complainant/consumer is legally bound to pay the energy charges with respect to the agriculture connection given to him by the opposite parties. It is also to be noted that the complainant has not made the concerned agricultural officer as a party to the complaint in CC.11/08. Thus, in all respects, the opposite parties are perfectly justified in demanding the energy charges from the complainant with respect to the agricultural connection given to the complainant as consumer with No.935/VTL/5. Ext.P3 Revenue Recovery notice dated:7/7/2005 would make it clear that the opposite party/KSEB had already initiated RR proceedings for recovery of the amounts covered by P1 and P2 documents. It is also to be noticed that the complainant remitted the amounts covered by P1 and P2 demand notices after issuance of P3 notice under RR proceedings. It is a settled position that once RR proceedings are initiated the agency constituted under the Consumer Protection Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute involved in RR proceedings. On that respect also, the Forum below cannot be justified in entertaining the complaint in CC.11/08. It is also to be noted that P1 demand notice was issued on 11/2/2002 and P2 notice on 25/3/2004. It is further to be noticed that P3 RR notice was issued on 7/7/2005. It is there after the complaint in CC.11/08 was filed by the complainant on 23/2/2007. It can be seen that the dispute involved in CC.11/08 was barred by limitation because P1 demand for the energy charge was made on 11/2/2002 and P2 demand was made on 25/3/2004. In fact, the dispute involved in CC.11/08 was barred by limitation. Thus, the Forum below cannot be justified in ignoring those relevant aspects of the case. We have no hesitation to set aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated:22/8/2008 passed by CDRF, Idukki in CC.11/08 is set aside. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER VALSALA SARANGADHARAN: MEMBER VL. | 
