By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:

Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
 

The complaint in brief is as follows.

The Complainant is a consumer of electricity for the last 20 years and paid the electricity charge and meter rent regularly without any failure. The Opposite Party had taken the reading of the meter, from time to time and charge was imposed basing on it. The Opposite Party demanded from the Complainant Rs.1,363/- during the period of July 2003 to November 2003 in the way of back assessment and a demand notice was issued in that respect. The Complainant is not liable to pay any amount as demanded by the Opposite Party. The amount demanded is untimely and barred by limitation. The demand notice sent in order to recover the amount from the Complainant is an unfair trade practice and it is also a deficiency in service of the Opposite Party. The Complaint may be compensated with Rs.5,000/- for the mental pain and agony and the demand notice issued to the Complainant is to be directed to be withdrawn along with cost.

2. The Opposite Party filed version. The sum up of the version filed by the Opposite Party is as follows. The spot bill issued to the consumer No.4663 had been cleared. Rs.1,363/- was demanded from the Complainant towards the back assessment of electricity consumption 7/2003 to 11/2003. The back assessment bill for No. 4663 was for Rs.1,363/-. The demand notice issued to the Complainant was in pursuance of the audit of Regional Audit Officer, Regional Audit Office, Kerala State Electricity Board. The complaint is bad for non jointer of necessary parties. The Complainant has to clear the amount demanded. The Complaint is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed.

3. The points in consideration are.

1. Whether any deficiency in service effected?

2. Relief and cost.

4. Point No.1:- The Complainant filed proof affidavit, Ext.A1 to A3 are marked. The Opposite Party swear their allegation in affidavit and Ext.B1 is marked for the Opposite Party. The Complainant has given oral testimony. The case of the Complainant is that the demand notice issued by the Opposite Party to the Complainant is barred by limitation and is not sustainable. According to the Opposite Party the bill amount demanded is followed by audit report of Regional Audit Officer. Ext.A1 is the demand cum disconnection notice issued to the Complainant for Rs.377/-. The Opposite Party categorically stated that Rs.1,363/- demanded in Ext.A3 is for a period commencing 7/2003 and ending 11/2003 the bill date 26.7.2008 demanding Rs.1,363/- numbered 354584. The Opposite Party has made the demand only after the laps of 5 years and the amount demanded is for back assessment as per 56(2) of Indian Electricity Act 2003 the amount demanded as against the Provision Act 56(2) of Indian Electricity Act reads “notwithstanding anything contained any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under the section shall be recovered after the period of 2 years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supplied of electricity”. The Opposite Party demanded the amount based on back assessment and the same is against the provision. The demand of the Opposite Party for Rs.1,363/-. In the bill date 26.7.2008 is a deficiency in service and the point No.1 is found accordingly.

5. Point No.2:- The Opposite Party issuance of the bill demanding the amount is against the provision. The Complainant's plea for Rs.5,000/- towards the compensation and cost is not supported by any evidence. The demand notice cum disconnection notice numbered 354584 dated 26.7.2008 is unsustainable.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The demand cum disconnection notice dated 26.7.2008 numbered 354584 to the consumer No.4663 is quashed. No order as to cost.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28^th day of February 2009.