O R D E R

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.

Case of the petitioners is as follows:

Petitioner is the trustee of St.Basil's Church, Manimala. Petitioner availed electric connection from the opposite party electricity board with vide Consumer number 1663 under LT VI A Tariff. Petitioner's states that on 26..6..2006 opposite party issued a bill to the petitioner demanding to pay an amount of Rs. 24,532/- towards electricity charges. According to the petitioner average electricity bill of the “Kurisupally” for the last somany years was bellow Rs. 200/-. According to the petitioner the bill for an amount of Rs. 24532/- is issued towards electricity charges for previous 64 months. Petitioner paid all the electricity charges and there was no arrears pending for payment. Petitioner states that the said bill is issued against the provisions of the Electricity Act 2003 and issuance

-2-

of the bill is without any legal basis and is clear deficiency of service . So, the petitioner prays for cancelllation of the bill and also he claims for cost of Rs. 1000/-.

Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The petitioner admitted that on 26..6..2006 a bill demanding Rs. 24532/- was served towards cost of electricity supply to the petitioners premises. They contented that the averment of the petitioner that the cost of the average consumption is below Rs. 200/- is not correct. Electricy bills for 20 units were being served to a nearby shop keeper, because neither the petitioner nor any persons authorised by the petitioner were present at the premises to open the Kurisupally for recording meter reading by the board officials. So the opposite party was not in a position to ascertain the actual energy consumption of the petitioner. The opposite party admitted that the bill amount being the electricity charges for previous 64 months. They contented that since the premises was locked they cannot be able to take the meter reading in time. Opposite party contented that being supply licencee of electricty board enjoys all right to recover charges of electricity supplied to the petitioner. So the opposite party contented that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. The opposite party further contented that since the 3^rd opposite party has permitted the petitioner to remitte the bill amount is 5 instalment the petitioner is estoped from filing petition before the Forum. So, opposite party prays for a dismissal of the petition with costs.

Evidence in this case consists of the affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A4 documents on the side of the petitioner. Even though the opposite party mention above documemtns in their affidavit they have not produced any documents.

-3-

Points for determinations are:

i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

ii) Reliefs and costs.

Point No. 1

Petitioner produced the disputed bill dtd: 26..6..2006 the said document is marked as Ext. A1. As per regulation 21 of the Kerala Electricity supply code 2005 the bill shall contain the period covered by the bill. But here in Ext. A1 it was not mentioned. Further more as per regulation 33 (5) if during the second instance of the locked up premises reading of meter and preperation of invoice is not able to done .the consumer will be give a written 24 hours notice to keep open the premises and if the consumer has not kept open the supply shall be disconnected without being notice. Here no notice as the contemplated by the regulation 33 of the conditions of supply 2005 was given to the petitioner.

In consumer Protection Act deficiency is defined as:

Any fault, imperfection or inadequacy in the quality. Nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for time being in force. Here the opposite party has not performed the manner of performance under the law for the time being in force. So, we are of the opinion that act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency of service. Further more from Ext. A1 it can be seen that the said bill is for a period of 64 months. As per Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act no some due from any consumer, shall be recoverable after the period of 2 years from the date when such some become first due unless such some has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied. Further more, the opposite party has not produced any

-4-

documents to prove that the petitioner had consumed such huge amount of energy. The counsel for the opposite party argued that since the opposite party had given instalment facility to the petitioner there is an acknowledgement of liability by the petitioner. So, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of section 56 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. We are of the opinion that the said contention is not sustainable because 56 (2) is a statutory bar for recovery of amounts due after a period of 2 years from the date when such some furst due. So, the acknowledgement of liability like in the case of limitation is not applicable. So, point No. 1, is found accordingly.

Point No. 2

In view of finding in point No.1. Petition is to be allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for. In the result the petition is allowed. The bill dated 26..6..2006 for Rs. 24,532/- issued to the petitioner is cancelled. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, no cost and compensation is ordered.

Dictated by me, transcribed by the Confidential Assistant, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of October, 2008.