SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. Complaint seeking injunction, compensation etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant is an industrial consumer under LT IV tariff and the electric connection was provided to him on executing a minimum guarantee agreement. The complainant was remitting the electricity charges regularly as per the bills received. While so the opp.parties issued a bill for an exhorbitant amount describing as arrears of minimum, guarantee amount since the amount was not paid connection was dismantled. The arrears in minimum guarantee occurred due to the mistake committed by the opp.parties which was detected in 2006 by the audit party. The issuance of arrears bill amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. The opp.parties filed a joint version contending interalia that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant executed a minimum guarantee agreement in favour of Kerala State Electricity Board on 16.6.2000 and he was given connection on 17.9.2001. As per the terms of the agreement if the current charges along with the fixed charges is below Rs.2960/- the consumer is bound to pay Rs.2960/- per month and if it is above Rs.2960/- he shall pay the amount of Rs.2960/- and the excess amount. But due to some mistake the consumer has been billed for lesser amount than Rs.2960/- and when the mistake was noticed revised bill was issued. Since the consumer did not remit the amount the supply was disconnected and subsequently the connection was dismantled. The amount in the bill does not include any surcharge but only the charge as per minimum guarantee less the amount already remitted. The opp.parties have every right to rectify their mistake and demand proper charges There is no deficiency in service. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint. The following issues arises for consideration: 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable? 2. Whether there is any deficiency in service? 3. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext.P1 to P6 are marked. For the opp.parties DW.1 is examined. Ext. D1 to D4 are marked. POINTS: Execution of Ext. D1 minimum guarantee agreement is not disputed. The minimum amount to be remitted as per Ext. D1 is Rs.2960/- p.m.is also not disputed. It is also not seriously disputed that the complainant was remitting the current charges regularly as per the bills issued by the opp.parties. The case of the opp.parties is that due to inadvertence the bill issued to the complainant was for lesser amount than Rs.2960/- and the mistake was detected by the audit party which necessitated issuance of Ext.P1. It goes without saying that the complaint has a duty to pay the current charges as per the stipulation in Ext. D1. He cannot absolve himself of his liability contending that he has paid electricity charges to opp.parties as per the bills issued by them. The opp.parties have every right to rectify mistakes of under billing and realize the amount is well settled by the Hon’ble High Court in OP.5935/85. But when the fault is on the side of the opp.parties they cannot realize interest on such sums. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the opp.parties that the amount now claimed did not contain any service charge or any other penal charges. As pointed out earlier the complainant is bound to pay the current charges as stipulated in Ext. D1. It has come in evidence the complainant filed Ext. D4 complaint before the Deputy Chief Engineer who is the Appellate Authority which was considered in the Adalath and the current charges were revised and Ext. D3 is issued. If the amount as per Ext. D3 is the actual arrears without service charges and interest the complainant has to pay the above sum without any complaint and for instalment facility etc. he may approach the Deputy Chief Engineer who issued Ext. D3. We record the fact that no interest or service charge is included in Ext. D3 . The contention of the complainant is that he suffered mental agony and harassment due to the act of the opp.parties. That argument cannot be accepted. When Ext. D1 is executed the complainant has also a duty to make payment of the sum stipulated in Ext. D1. Merely because he received a bill for a lesser sum his liability is not absolved. Opp.parties have stated that the issuance of bills for lesser amounts was due to an inadvertent mistake. In these circumstances no deficiency in service can be attributed on the opp.parties especially, when they have issued revised bills without charging interest, service charges or other penal charges. This is a case wherein the complainant has already approached the Appellate Authority under the Electricity Act for redressal of his grievance. A complaint before this Forum for the same purpose alleging that the decision of the Appellate Authority was not favourable to him is not maintainable. It is also worth pointing out in this context that the reliefs sought for in the complaint are not allowable by this Forum. The 1st prayer is for an injunction retrai8ning the opp.parties from initiating Revenue Recovery Proceedings against the complainant for the realization of the amount and the 2nd prayer in to restrain the opp.parties from realizing the arrears with interest. Revenue Recovery Proceedings are initiated in exercise of sovereign power of the State and the Consumer For a have no jurisdiction to interfere with the same. An injunction to restrain the opp.parties from realizing a sum due in pursuant to an agreement also cannot be granted by Consumer For a. So the complaint as brought is not maintainable. Points found accordingly. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dated this the 26th day of December, 2009. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Mohanan Pillai List of documents for the complainant P1. – Photocopy of notice dated 6.10.06 P2.[a]- Demand notice P2.[b] – Statement P3. – Disconnection notice P4. – Consumer bill dated 11.1.07 P7. – Consumer bill dated 11.2.2007 and receipts P6. – Original receipt[15 numbers] List of documents for the opp.party DW.1. – Aneesh Aravind List of documents for the opp.parties D1. – Minimum Guarantee Agreement dt. 16.6.2000 D2. – Notice and Statement dt. 18.5.06 D3. – Decision in the Adalath D4. – Copy of complaint dat6ed 4.1`2.08. | 
