O R D E R<br /> Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President.<br /> The case of the petitioner's is as follows:<br /> Petitioner as self employment conducted an Automobile Workshop in the name and style as Vattappara Automobiles up to 1995. Electric supply to the business concern was supplied by the opposite party KSEB with vide consumer No. 2624. According to the petitioner on 10..7..2006 a bill was issued by 3rd opposite party demading payment of an amount of Rs. 6483/-. The petitioner states that he had not consumed electrical energy for such a huge amount petitioner stated that he had demanded for disconnection of electric connection on several times but the opposite party has not heed to the demands of the petitioner. According to the petitioner the demand of the opposite party is barred by the limitation and the issuance of the bill is without any basis and is clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. So he prays for cancellation of the bill dtd: 10..7..2006 and claim Rs. 750/- as cost of the proceedings.<br /> -2-<br /> Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the Petition is not maintainable. According to the opposite party the petitioner is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The averment of the petitioner that the income from said business is his only source of livelihood is denied by the opposite party. According to the opposite party business of the petitioner is a commercial one so the petition is not maintainable . The opposite party contented that averment of the petitioner that on 1995 he had stopped the business is false. According to the opposite party the petitioner had stopped his business only on 22..5..2006. According to opposite party due to the door lock of the premises of the petitioner. The meter reading of the premises was not able to record so no bills were issued to the petitioner. As per the reading of the power meter the petitioner had consumed 1949 units of energy and as per the light meter reading the petitioner had consumed 53 units of the energy and as the final bill of the consumed energy the disputed bills is issued. According to the opposite party since from 4/96 premises of the petitioner was closed no reading is taken and bill issued to the petitioner from 4/96 to 5/06 in the minimum fixed charge and the meter rent and no current charge was levied to the petitioner. Opposite party contented that the issuance of the bill is as per law and no deficiency can attributed against the opposite parties. So the petition is to be dismissed with their costs.<br /> Points for determinations are:<br /> i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> ii) Reliefs and costs?<br /> Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner. <br /> -3-<br /> Point No. 1<br /> The opposite party contented that since the door of the business concern of the petitioner was locked the meter reader able to take the meter reading from 4/96 and after the dismantling of the meter on 22..5..2006 the opposite party came to know that the energy for an amount of Rs. 6,483/- was consumed by the petitioner. As per section 31 (e) of the, conditions of supply of electrical energy if the door is locked and the reading cannot be taken the consumer will be charged the meter minimum for the first month and during the second month the consumer will be issued a written notice to keet open the premises. If the consumer fails to keep open the premises and give the facilities for taking the meter reading as aforesaid the supply to the premises will be disconnected. Here no such steps had been taken by the opposite party for taking the meter reading. On reliance on the decision reported 2007, CTJ page, 927 (Hariyana Vydyuthin Prasaran Ltd. Vs. Aggrawal Ice Factory) Hon'ble National Commission stated that recovery beyond 3 years is time barred so, we are of the opinion that issuance of a bill after lapse of 11 years is time barred. Further more as per section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act 2003 no some due from any consumer shall be recoverable after the period of 2 years when such some first due. Point No. 1 is found accordingly.<br /> Point No. 2<br /> In view of findings in point No. 1, petition is to be allowed. In the result the petition is allowed and the petitioner is entitled for the reliefs sought for. The bill Dtd: 10..7..2006 with vide invoice No. AM 37051 for an amount of Rs. 6,483/- is cancelled. <br /> <br /> <br /> -4-<br /> Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.<br /> Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of August, 2008.