<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> <br /> Case of the petitioner's is as follows:<br /> The petitioner is conducting a two-wheeler workshop under the name and style as Mohana Auto Garage. The petitioner is a consumer of opposite party with vide Consumer No. 13273. The petitioner is conducting the said work shop solely for his livelihood as selfemployment. The petitioner had been paying regularly the bills issued by the opposite party up to October, 2001. The average of the bill of the petitioner was <br /> -2-<br /> Rs. 150 up to October, 2001. On 16..11..2001 the second opposite party conducted an inspection in the work shop of the petitioner and found some additional machines in the work shop and assessed with the connected load based on those machines. According to the petitioner he never used the alleged machines and it was kept therefor using it in another work shop. The petitioner states that the said fact was intimated to the second opposite party at the time of inspection itself and further intimated his desire to shift it from there. The petitioner states that he had not consumed any additional energy over and above what was sanctioned to him. According to the petitioner he had never used any additional machine and machine by the opposite party at the time of inspection was not connected to the electrical supply at the time of inspection. The second opposite party on 23..11..2001 issued a notice to the petitioner alleging misuse of electrical energy and directed the petitioner to dismantl the additional load. On receipt of the said notice petitioner approached the second opposite party and intimated the remove of the machines from the premises and prayed for dropping further actions. As per the direction of the second opposiste party a subordinate officer inspected the premises in order to ascertain the shifting of the machines from the premises. The opposite party on satisfaction of the shifting of the machine issued a regular bill dtd: 27..11..2001 for an amount of Rs. 159/- to the petitioner without charging any penal charge or interest. Surprisingly 2 bills dtd: 27..12..2001, for Rs. 9004/- and Rs. 1939/- were issued to the petitioner. On receiving the said bills petitioner again conducted the second and 3rd opposite party they stated the petitioner that the said bills were issued as a mistake committed by the employees and directed the petitioner not to pay the amount. <br /> <br /> -3-<br /> Subsequently bills were issued to the petitioner with penal charges assuming the connected load of the petition as 13 KW. On 15..5..2002 a notice was issued to the petitioner by the second opposite party demanding additional deposit of Rs. 2500/-. On receiving the notice the petitioner approached the second opposite party and informed that the 3 phase connection is no more required to the petitioner and he is not ready to pay the deposit as demanded. The petitioner was of a bonafide belief that the connection is dis connected surprisingly he received notices dtd: 20..7..2002 demanding to pay an amount of Rs. 17,985/- as arrear for avoiding permanant disconnection subsequently another notice dtd: 13..11..2003 demanding Rs. 61312/- as arrear was served to the petitioner. On receiving the said notice the petitioner approached the second opposite party and intimated real facts. Then another notice dtd: 25..5..2005 was served to the petitioner demanding payment of Rs. 80,948/-. If not paid he has to face RR proceedings. According to the petitioner he is not liable for paying the said amount. The petitioner states that issuance bills dated 27..12..2001 and other subsequent bills are illgal and it amount to deficiency in service. So, he prays for setting aside the RR demand notices dated 22..8..2005 and also to set aside notice dated 25..5..2005 he also prays for a declaration that complainant is not liable to pay any penal charges as per the inspection report, he also prays for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3000/- as cost of the proceedings.<br /> The opposite party filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. Because, as per the case of the petitioner itself, the petitioner owns another connection under consumer No. 10611 and said connection is in VII B Tariff and is being used by<br /> <br /> -4-<br /> the petitioner for running another profit making business. So allegation of the petitioner that the electricity supplied to the petitioner under consumer No. 13273 was being used for earning his sole livelihood is false. So the petitioner is not a consumer as defined in Section 2 (d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Dated 27..12..2001 According to opposite party the notice is issued for misuse of energy, detected at his premises, as per clause 42 (d) of condidtions of supply of Electrical Energy 1990. According to the opposite party, as admitted by the petitioner, the cause of action for the petition occurred beyond a period of 2 years. So the petition is barred by limitation. The opposite party further contented that section 27 of the R.R Act expressly states that the District Collector is the authority to be approached on matters related to R.R proceedings. So, the Forum has no authority to adjudicate the matter. Opposite party states that on 16..11..2001 an inspection was conducted by 3rd opposite party at the premises of the petitioner and inspection revealed that connected load at the premises of the petitioner was 13 KW instead of sanctioned load of 2 KW and this fact is clearly evidenced from the site mahazar prepared at the time of inspection. The opposite party contented that the equipments which are detailed in the mahazar were connected by the petitioner to the board supply system at the time of inspection. So, on 23..11..2001 a statutory notice was served to the petitioner. The removal of the additional load, as averred by the petitioner was not intimated to the opposite party duly supported by a complettion report authenticated by a licensed wireman. Opposite party states that any addition/delition to the existing Electrical installation at the premises of the consumer which is likely to affect its capacity or character shall be done only by a licensed Electrical contractor, as<br /> <br /> -5-<br /> mandated by clause 24 of the conditions of supply of electrical energy 1990. According to the opposite party the petitioner has no case that he had submitted the complettion report to substantiate the removal of the additional load. The opposite party contented that bill dated 27..11..2001 served to the petitioner was his regular bill for the month of 10/01 so, the question of the penalty for additional bills does not arise. The Two bills dtd: 27..12..2001 were served to the petitioner the bill for Rs. 9000/- was issued as per clause 42(d) of the conditions of supply of Electrical Energy 1990 for mis use of Electricity energy. The bill for Rs. 1939/- was the regular bill of the petitioner for the month of 11/01. Notice dtd: 15..5..2002 was issued for the additional cash deposit. So the opposite party contented that the issuance of the bills and the initiation of the RR proceedings are legal and valid and no deficiency can be attributed against the opposite party. <br /> Points for determination are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A17 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 documents on the side of the opposite party.<br /> Point No. 1<br /> Admittedly the petitioner is actually challenging notice dtd: 20..7..2002, 13..11..2002 etc. The petitioner has not filed any petition before this Fora challenging the said bills within 2 years of receipt of the issuance of the said bills. As per 24 (a) of the<br /> <br /> -6-<br /> Consumer Protection Act, a complaint shall not be admitted unless it is filed within 2 years from the date on which the cause of action has arosed petitioner in paragraph 11 of the petition stated that issuance of the bill dtd: 27..12..2001 is illegal and it amount deficiency in service. So, we are of the opinion that the petition is not filed within time so the petition is barred by limitation. Further more the petitioner prays to set aside the RR demand notice Dtd: 22..8..2005. As per Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act finding of the District Forum is subjected to direct one or more of reliefs mentioned theirin. We are of the opinion that Forum has no jurisdiction to set aside the R.R demand notice. As per Section 72 of the R.R Act every question arising between collector and defaulter shall be determind by the District Collector. So, we are of the opinion on that ground also the petition is not maintainable before this Forum. The counsel for the petitioner argued that on receipt of the bill dtd: 27..12..2001 and on receipt of the other subsequent bills the petitioner had gone to the office of the opposite party for cancellation of the said bills but the petitioner has not produced any peice of evidence to prove this said contentions. We are of the opinion that the said stand of the petitioner is only to explain the delay in filing petition and to escape from the bar of limitation. Further more as per clause 24 of the conditions of supply 1910 every alteration and renovation of instulation should be done by a consumer by submitting an application for the same along with the test report signed by a licensed wiring contractor. Here in this case the petitioner has no case that he had given application for removal of additional load along with the completion report as mentioned in clause 24 of conditions of supply of electrical energy 1990. So contention of petitioner that on receipt of the bill<br /> <br /> -7-<br /> dtd: 27..12..2001 he went to the office of the opposite party for removal of the machines is not believable . So considering all this aspects we are of the opinion that the petition is not maintainable before the Forum.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of finding in point No. 1, Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Parties will bear their costs.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and Pronounced Open Forum on this the 29th .day of September, 2008.