KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:227/2006 JUDGMENT DATED:13..11..2008. PRESENT SRI.M.V.. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER 1.Thrissur Corporation, Repd. by Secretary. : APPELLANTS 2.Assistant Secretary, Thrissur Corporation, Electricity Department, Thrissur. (By Adv: Sri.B.Vasudevan Nair) V. Sri.Mohanan, S/o Kunjimon, Manikkath House, Gourimma Lane, : RESPONDENT P.O.Poonkunnam, Thrissur. JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred against the order dated:18th January 2006 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP:1149/04. The complaint therein was filed by the respondents herein against the appellants as opposite parties seeking the relief to get the P1 demand notice dated:21..2..2004 cancelled. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed written version with calculation statement stating that the arrears shown in the statement is due from the complainant by way of arrears of current charges for the period from September 1997 to January 2001. The Forum below accepted the case of the complainant by finding that the claim made by P1 demand notice is barred by limitation under Section.539 of the Municipalities Act and under Section.56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred. 2. When this appeal was taken up for final hearing there was no representation for the respondent/complainant. We heard the counsel for the appellants/opposite parties (Thrissur Corporation). He submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. He canvassed for the position that the amounts due as arrears of current charges cannot be treated as an amount due under Municipality Act and so Sec.539 of the Municipalities Act has no application in the present case. It is also submitted that the arrears claimed is with respect to the period from September 1997 to January 2001 and so the said claim is not barred by virtue of the provisions of Sec.56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. He also relied on the calculation statement produced along with the written version and requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Forum below. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the arrears of electricity charges demanded by the opposite party/Thrissur Corporation by virtue of P1 demand notice dated:21..2..2004 is barred by limitation by virtue of the provisions of Sec.539 of the Municipalities Act and Sec.56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003? 2. Whether the amount claimed by way of arrears of current charges is legally due to the appellants/opposite parties? 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below? 4. Point Nos:1 to 3:- This commission has already held that the current charges or arrears of current charges due to the Thrissur Corporation cannot be considered as amount due to the Municipality/Thirssur Corporation under the Municipalities Act. It is made clear that Sec.539 of the Municipalities Act has no application as far as the arrears of current charges are concerned. So the finding of the Forum below that the claim is barred under Sec.539 of the Municipalities Act is legally unsustainable and the said finding is setaside. 5. The arrears of current charges claimed is for the period ranging from September 1997 to January 2001. The calculation statement attached to the written version would also make it clear that the arrears claimed is for the period from September 1997 to January 2001. Admittedly the Electricity Act, 2003 came into force on 10..6..2003. If that be so, the claim made by way of P1 demand notice is not hit by the Sec.56(2) of the Electricity Act. It is to be noted that the provisions of Electricity Act 2003 have no retrospective operation but only prospective in nature. The position has been made more clear by the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in Abdul Nazar Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and Others reported in 2006 (1) KLJ 440. It is held that section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 has no application as far as the amount recoverable as arrears of charges for the electricity supplied for the period prior to the commencement of the said Act. So, the finding of the Forum below that the claim is barred by the provisions of Sec.56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 is also liable to be quashed. Hence we do so. 6. The opposite party/Thrissur Corporation has filed calculation statement regarding the arrears of electricity charges due to the corporation. The complainant has not filed any objection to the said statement. Moreover a perusal of the said statement and the averments in the written objection would make it clear that the aforesaid calculation in the calculation statement attached to the written version is to be accepted as correct. If that be so, the amount due from the complainant by way of arrears of current charges would come to Rs.7,146.85. The complainant being a consumer of electricity is legally bound to pay the aforesaid amount by way of arrears of current charges due to the opposite party/Thrissur Corporation for the period from September 1997 to January 2001. Hence we hold that the complainant is liable to pay the arrears of current charges claimed in the calculation statement attached to the written version filed by the opposite party/Thrissur Corporation. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is liable to be setaside. Hence we do so. In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated:18..1..2006 passed by the Forum below is setaside. There will be no order as to cost. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR: MEMBER VL.
......................SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN
......................SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR | | 
