BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 18/10/2012

Date of Order : 12/02/2015

Present :-

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 658/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

Sheen Jose, Member.

1. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :-

The complainant is conducting a textile shop for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The complainant availed an electric connection to his shop, he has been remitting the electricity charge promptly. The facts being so, the 2^nd opposite party issued a bill date 14-09-2012 demanding to pay a sum of Rs. 1,07,476/- on or before 16-10-2012. The said bill demanded Rs. 17,400/- towards fixed charge and Rs. 90,086/- towards energy charges. It is stated in the said bill that inspection conducted during February 2006, the opposite parties detected 13 KW without realizing the arrear penalization from February 2006 to December 2008. The load was regularised with effect from December 2008 as 16 KW and hence there is short assessment from February 2006 to December 2008. It is contended that the said demand is barred by limitation, especially when the complainant had been remitting electricity charges from February 2006 to December 2008. The complainant is not liable to pay the amount as per the disputed bill. Thus, the complainant is entitled to get the bill in question set aside. The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and sufferings. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the opposite parties as follows :-

The complainant is the Managing Partner of a textile showroom, a commercial establishment and so the complainant is not a consumer within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act. The bill for Rs. 1,07,476/- was issued to the complainant vide bill dated 14-09-2012 for the period from February 2006 till regularisation of unauthorised load in December 2008. The bill was issued after the inspection conducted in the premises of the complainant by the Regional Audit Officer during the audit period from 02-11-2005 to 25-01-2006. In the said inspection, an unauthorised additional load of 13 KW was detected. A provisional invoice bill was issued for Rs. 2,700/- and the complainant remitted the same on 11-01-2006. The complainant is legally liable to remit the amount as per the impugned bill.

3. Proof affidavit has been field by the complainant. Exts. A1 to A2 (a) were marked on the side of the complainant. No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

2. Whether the complainant is liable to pay the amount as per the bill in question?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings?

    

5. Point No. i. :- At the outset, the opposite parties challenged the maintainability of the complaint stating that the complainant is not a consumer within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. The definite case of the complainant is that he is conducting the textile shop for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment, though the opposite parties contended that the complainant has availed the service of the opposite parties for commercial purpose, they could not prove the same by adducing any form of evidence. Moreover, the complainant is running the textile shop for earning his livelihood. Hence he is a consumer within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, this point is found in favour of the complainant.

6. Point No. ii. :- The complainant contended that the present demand as per Ext. A1. The impugned bill is barred by limitation. The opposite parties stated that the amount of charges would be come due and payable only with the submission of the bill and not earlier. The learned counsel for the opposite parties relied on the following decisions rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, in which reads as under :-

1. Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation Vs. Yatish Sharma (2007) KHC 3784.

2. Sunderdas.P. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr. (2009) (1) KHC 945 & 2009 (2) KLT SN 7.

7. It is to be noted that the opposite parties have not produced the full text of the above decisions. Even according to the opposite parties in 2006, they have issued a provisional invoice bill for Rs. 2,200/- and the complainant remitted the same amount on 11-01-2006. Ext. A1 the disputed bill is dated 14-09-2012, which is issued after a period of more than six years. No explanation is forthcoming as to the reason for the delay in issuing Ext. A1. As per the Electricity Act, the opposite parties ought to have issued the bill, if any, within two years from the date of cause of action for the disputed bill. It is to be noted that the opposite parties could not issue the bill in time due to the laches on their part, which cannot be approved by this Forum. We have no hesitation to hold that the demand as Ext. A1 is barred by limitation and the complainant is not liable to pay the amount as per Ext. A1, not to mention we set aside the same.

8. Point No. iii. :- In view of the above decision in point No. ii., any further discussion in this point is not necessary. We are of the considered opinion that the above decision is enough to abate the agony of the complainant. The prayer for costs of the proceedings is rejected.

9. In the result, we pass the following order :-

1. We set aside Ext. A1, the impugned bill.

2. The order in I.A. No. 651/2012 dated 19-10-2012 is made absolute.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 12^th day of February 2014.

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil