By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President :

The Complaint filed U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The sum up of the Complaint is as follows:- The Complainant executed the Minimum Guarantee Agreement with Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 along with other 11 farmers. The connection of electricity was availed because of the information that the farmers would get the grant of Rs.20,000/- from the Government and the subsidy amount would be adjusted in the bill issued by the Opposite Parties. The consumption of the electricity by the complainant started from 1.1.2001, the bill issued was for Rs. 1,444/- though consumption was lesser in quality, the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 issued exorbitant amount for the period of 10 months. The Complainant had not remitted the bill amount since the bill was a faulty one and for high amount. As per the order of Government GO MS 235/98/AD dated 31.10.98 the complainant has to get the benefit of the order and exemption from the payment of the bill. The amount demanded vide the bills were not paid by the complainant being it was illegal and incorrect. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 dismantled the connection and for recovering the amount Revenue Recovery Proceedings are initiated. The request of the complainant to relieve him from recovering the amount was not responded. The property of the complainant is attached to recover the amount. The complainant was issued an additional bill of Rs.31,105/- there may be an order directing the Opposite Parties to :-

(1). Cancel the additional bill of Rs.31,105/-.

(2). Reconnect the electricity connection of the Complainant.

(3). The Opposite Parties No.3 to 5 are to be given direction to withhold the Revenue Recovery proceedings and

(4). Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/-. Towards cost.

2. Opposite parties filed version on their appearance. The contentions of the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 in brief are as follows. The Complaint is filed on experimental basis to evade from the Revenue Recovery Proceedings initiated against the complainant. The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

3. The Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 filed version in short it is as follows. The dispute alleged in this complaint is once considered and ordered by the Honourable High Court of Kerala vide write petition OP. No.12345/03. The petition was disposed with a direction to the 1^st Opposite Party for a speaking order referring to the allegations in the petition. The direction given by 1^st Opposite Party for the payment of the amount due after considering all the aspect were violated and in such circumstances Revenue Recovery proceedings are initiated. The Minimum Guarantee Agreement was executed by the complainant on 3.9.1999 vide the agreement No. 16/99-2000. The connected load to the complainant for 3HP pump was 2238 watts. The Minimum guarantee amount of the consumer per annum was Rs 8,865/- the revised minimum guarantee amount waiving the subsidy was Rs.3165 /- per annum. The complaint is not eligible for the exemption from the payment of the Minimum Guarantee amount as per the order of the Electricity Board. The subsidy for the eligible consumers are given by the Government through Krishi Bhavan if satisfied the formalities which are necessary. The complainant herein has not given any application in time to get the subsidy and other favours. The agricultural department is a necessary party in this case in the absence of it the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The bills in the beginning issued for Rs. 1,444/- was free from subsidy. When the subsidy was granted it was in time adjusted to the bill and issued to the complainant. The Complaint filed is devoid of any merit but only to evade from the responsibility of payment of dues. Therefore the complaint is to be dismissed with cost.

4. Opposite parties No.3 to 5 have not filed any version. No evidence is tendered by the Opposite parties No.3 to 5.

5. The points in consideration are

1. Whether any deficiency on the part of the Opposite parties ?

2. Reliefs and cost .

6. Point No.1 Complainant filed proof affidavit swearing the contentions and allegations. The documents filed for the complainant are marked as Ext. A1 to A4. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties filed proof affidavit contending the facts alleged by the complaint. Ext. B1 and B2 are the documents produced for the Opposite parties No.1 and 2. Both the complainant and Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 tendered oral evidence.

7. The case of the complainant is that the electricity connection supplied by the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 executing Minimum Guarantee Agreement is entitled to get the favors of exemption and subsidy granted by the Government through Krishi Bhavan. The Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 had not given the concession of subsidy and exemption. In contrary the Opposite Parties demanded exorbitant amount in the way of electricity charge. The subsidy

granted to the complainant for adjusting the amount in the bill was given in the later stage. As a result the complaint was not in a position to remit the amount that was demanded by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 . Opposite Parties No. 3 to 5 had initiated the Revenue Recovery Proceedings as per the direction of the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 to recover the amount due from the complainant. The supply of electricity to the complainant was for the purpose of agriculture. In oral testimony of the complainant it is admitted that the exemption from payment of bills are not given to the complainant. The connected load of electricity of the complainant is 2238 watt.

8. Ext.A2 is the photo copy of the certificate issued by the Agricultural Officers stating that the complainant belongs to BPL category. But the certificate does not pertain to the relevant period As per the order of the Kerala state Electricity Board those who are in below consumption of 1000 watts in the BPL category are exempted from the payment of electricity charges in agricultural purposes. The favour of this order is not applicable in the case of this complaint. However the subsidy amount is adjusted in the electricity charge of the complainant and after deducting the subsidy, lesser amount is charged. In the oral testimony of the complainant it is admitted that before getting electricity connection the land property was sold by the complainant. The contention of the Opposite party is that inorder to adjust the subsidy amount of Rs.20,000/- in the bill if any delay happened the responsibility solely lies upon the complaint. The complainant has not brought out in evidence that the application for receiving subsidy was forwarded to the K.S.E.B through Krishi Bhavan in time. The Opposite Parties No.3 to 5 initiated the recovery proceedings against the complainant on demand of the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2. The recovery proceedings initiated cannot be interfered.

9. Point No 2. The complainant in the oral testimony admitted that the property in which the electricity connection was taken disposed before getting the connection. Ext.B1 is the copy of the order issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board. It is evident from this document that exemption from the payment of electricity charge is allowed to the applicant who complied the formalities and use of energy is to be below 1000 watts. The complainant in this respect is not possible for exemption from the payment of electricity charge. However on verification of the electricity bills issued to the complainant, the subsidy amount of Rs.20,000/- is adjusted in the bills issued. The Complainant had not made any payment towards the bill amount that resulted in the Revenue Recovery . In the light of the discussion of the above is it is found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties had not committed any deficiency in service. A detailed discussion of the Point No.2 is not necessary right from the outset and the Point No.2 is also found accordingly.

In the result the complaint is dismissed no order as to cost.

Pronounced in Open Forum on this the 31^st day of March 2009.

PRESIDENT : Sd/-

MEMBER I : Sd/-

MEMBER II : Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant :

PW1. Paily Complainant.

Witnesses for the Opposite Party :

OPW1. Vinodkumar Assistant Engineer in charge

of Assistant Executive Engineer. S. Bathery

Exhibits for the Complainant :

A1. Certificate dt. 22.03.2008

A2. Certificate

A3 Series. Bills

A4. Copy of demand notice

Exhibits for the Opposite Party :

B1. True copy of Board order dt. 3.01.2008

B2. Calculation Statement