By. Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President :
 

The Complaint filed u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The complaint in brief is as follows :-

The Complainant has entered into an agreement of Minimum Guarantee with the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party for the electricity connection for irrigation purpose in agricultural land which is having subsidy of Rs.20,000/-. The electric line drawn was charged on 1.1.2001 in Consumer No.18414. The bill issued to the complainant was for an exorbitant amount. The first bill issued to the complainant was for Rs. 1,444/-. On enquiry it was known to the complainant that the subsidy which was announced earlier was not credited in to the account of the complainant. Followed by the first bill, the subsequent bills were also for high amount. The allotment of the subsidy and reduction of amount in the bill came into effect after 10 months. Moreover as per the Govt. Order G.O.(M.S) No. 235/98/AD dated 31.10.98, the complainant was eligible for exemption from paying electricity bills. The non payment of the bill amount by the complainant was only due to the excess amount demanded in the way of bills and the non payment of bill amount resulted in the dismantling of the connection. The disconnection and dismantling of the electricity resulted heavy lose to the complainant. In addition to that in order to recover the amount due from the complainant, the Opposite party 1 and 2 initiated Revenue Recovery proceedings for Rs. 33,686/- against the complainant. On receiving the notice the complainant had paid Rs. 5,436/- on 24.3.2008 under protest. The endevour of the complainant to withdraw the Revenue Recovery proceedings reached no were else and property of the complainant was attached.

2. The complainant is not entitled to remit the bill amount claimed by the Opposite Party. The opposite parties Act involve the deficiency in service. There may be an order to :-

1. Cancel the additional bill of Rs. 33686/-

2. Re-connect the electricity connection to the complainant

3. The 3^rd and 5^th Opposite party may be directed to withdraw from the recovery proceedings against the complainant.

4. And to give Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2000/- as the cost of  this proceedings

3. Opposite Party filed version. The contentions of the first and second Opposite Party in short are as follows. The complainant has no right to prefer a complaint and the same is filed on experimental basis. The Revenue Recovery proceedings against the complainant is still in force and the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the case. The dispute in the above matter was once considered by the Honourable High Court of Kerala vide writ petition O.P No. 12345 of 2003. The Honourable High Court of Kerala has given a direction to the first Opposite Party to consider the grievances of the petitioners and the speaking order was issued by the Honourable High Court. The first Opposite Party considered the facts and circumstances and followed the directions in the writ petition. The complainant failed to make payment as ordered and the Revenue Recovery proceedings have started against the defaulters after dismantling the electricity connection on 19.10.2006. The complainant had executed a Minimum Guarantee agreement on 3.9.1999 and the connection was as in effect from 1.1.2001 onwards. The connected load to the complainant was for 3HP pump. The Minimum Guarantee amount per annum was Rs.8,665/-. The revised amount after waiving the subsidy was Rs. 3,165/- per annum. The exemption provision from the payments of electricity bills are given only to B.P.L category who are in the consumption below 1000 watts as per the Board Order No. B.O (FB) No. 1111/2007 (DPCI/C16-175/05) dated 9.05.2007. The consumer in this complaint is having a connected load of 2238 watts. The benefit of exemption is not applicable in this case. The eligible agricultural consumers are given the subsidy through Krishi Bhavans by the Government of Kerala. The exemption and the subsidy are alloted only by the Government. The complainant herein had not given any application to Poothady Agricultural Officer vide letter No. PDY-37/05-06 till 22.04.2006 for subsidy. The subsidy is considerable only when the arrears of electricity charges are closed. The complaint is not an eligible candidate in the beginning since the application was not given for a very long time. The complaint is bad for non-jointer of necessary parties and hence to be dismissed. The bills in the beginning were for Rs. 1,444/- and as such because of the non allotment of the subsidy amount. In crediting the amount to the account of the complainant if any delay caused it is only because of the latches on the part of the complainant. When the subsidy was granted it was soon credited in the account of the complainant there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The bills issued subsequently to the complainant was after accounting the subsidy amount towards the consumption charge of electricity. The complaint is intended only to cut through the Recovery proceedings initiated. The complaint is not having any merit it is to be dismissed with cost.

4 The Points in consideration are

1. Wheather any deficiency in service in the Act of the Opposite Parties ?

2. Relief and cost.

5. Point No.1 The complainant filed chief affidavit in support of the contention. Ext.A1 to A4 are marked for the complainant. The Opposite party also filed chief affidavit inter alia contenting the allegation of the complainant. Ext.B1 to B4 are the documents produced in support of their contention. The Complainant and Opposite parties have given oral testimony apart from the documents produced.

6. The case of the complainant is that the electricity connection availed by the complainant entering into Minimum Guarantee agreement under the agricultural connection is to be given exemption from the payment of the electricity charge. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite parties repudiated the norms of the Government not allowing the exemption for the complainant and other agriculturists. The steps to recover the amount due from the complainant in the way of Revenue Recovery are continuing which are to be restrained beings improper and not liable.

7. The Complainant is a consumer of electricity for agricultural purpose having connected load of 2238 watts. In order to get the bill issued to be quashed, the complainant had filed the petition in the Honourable High Court numbered OP 12345/03. The prayer in the OP filed are almost similar to the prayers that the complainant made in this complaint. The complainant has not avered anything about the petition filed in the Honourable High Court neither in the complainant nor in the chief affidavit subsequently filed. Moreover inorder to recover the amount due from the complainant the Opposite parties 1 and 2 initiated the Revenue Recovery proceedings which are still under the consideration of Op.3 to 5. In this juncture the complainant has filed this complaint.

8. The Opposite party filed documents. Ext.B1 is the proceedings of the Assistant Executive Engineer in pursuance of the direction of the Honourable High Court in OP. 12345/03 and the same was dismissed by the Assistant Executive Engineer considering all legal facts as

directed by the Honourable High Court. The complainant already admitted that the subsidy amount Rs.20,000/- that is entitled for the complainant as per the notification of the Government was availed. The subsidy was adjusted in the bill amount issued to the complainant . The plea of the complaint that the complainant is having the right for exemption is countermanded by the documents Ext.B2, the abstract of Kerala State Electricity Board and the order issued as such It is well exemplified in this order that the exemption is granted only to SC/ST and marginal farmers who consume electricity below 1000 watts. The range of connected load of energy by this complainant is 2238 watt and moreover this complainant does not come under the category of marginal farmers who are in the list of BPL. The subsidy and other concession are the grant of Government through Krishi Bhawan which requires the formalities as notified by the Government. It is also seen that though the complainant is not coming under the category of BPL who consumes energy below 1000 watt, the subsidy amount of rs.20,000/- is found adjusted to the bill amount. In such circumstances we find that that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties. Opposite parties 3 to 4 have initiated a steps to recover the amount under the provisions of recovery Act and that cannot be interfered. There is

no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties and point No.1 found accordingly.

Point No 2 It is found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite parties and as a result the detailed discussion of the Point No.2 is not necessary.

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. Sureshkumar Complainant

Witnesses for the Opposite Party :

OPW1. T. Vinodkumar Assistant Executive Engineer

Exhibits for the Complainant :

A1. Certificate

A2(Series) Electricity bills (10 Numbers)

A3. Receipt dt. 24.03.2003

A4. True copy of Intimation Recovery

Exhibits for the Opposite Party :

B1. True copy of the writ petition

B2. True copy of the Board Order

B3. Letter

B4. A Calculation Statement.