O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The facts of the complainant's case are as follows :
The complainant is an LT-IV category consumer under the 2nd opposite party. He was conducting a curry powder unit under the self-employment scheme introduced by the Khadi Board. Subsequently, the curry powder unit was closed in September 2005. So the connected load of the complainant was reduced to 10 HP from 20 HP. The consumption came down drastically during the period from October 2006 onwards. Now, the complainant is conducting an oil mill in the very same premises for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. While so, a penalty bill for Rs. 6,735/- dated 22-12-2010 was issued to the complainant alleging short assessment for one phase faulty from August 2006 to January 2007. It was also stated that the bill was issued on the basis of the RAO inspection conducted on December 2010. The complainant had paid the charges for one phase during 2007 eventhough, there was no phase fault. The present demand is barred by limitation as per Regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code. Thus, the complainant is before us with a plea to set aside the bill and the prayer to allow the complaint.
2. Version of the opposite party :
The penal bill for Rs. 6,735/- dated 22-12-2010 was issued alleging short assessment on the basis of an audit enquiry. The audit report was submitted on 15-11-2010. The meter of the complainant was replaced on 02-01-2007 due to failure of one phase. After changing the meter, the consumption was recorded for the period from February 2007 to July 2007 it showed a reading of 700 units average per month. So, the assessment bill was issued to the complainant after deducting the charges remitted by the complainant. The impugned bill is not an arrear bill but a short assessment bill. So the bar of limitation is not applicable in this case. The opposite parties request to dismiss the complaint.
3. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1 and A2 and B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite parties respectively. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The only point that arose for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the disputed bill set aside? According to the complainant, he has been remitting the electricity charges promptly. The present demand purportedly based on an audit report for the period from August 2006 to January 2007 is barred by limitation as per Regulation 18 (8) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code. The learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently contended that the recovery can be made on the basis of an audit report and it is not at all barred by limitation since the bill in question is not an arrear bill. The learned counsel relied on the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in Sindhu T.K. Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board and 3 Others (WP (C) No. 37314/2009 (H) dated 23-12-2009), in which the Hon'ble High Court categorically stated that the recovery can be made on the basis of an audit objection. Now, the question that remains is whether the claim of the opposite party is barred by limitation or not. Regulation 18 (8) of The Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005, reads as follows :
"The licensee shall not recover any arrears after a period of 2 years from the date when such sum became first due, unless such sum has been shown continuously in the bill as recoverable as arrears of the charges of electricity supplied."
5. Admittedly in the instant case, the demand of the opposite parties are beyond the period of limitation prescribed in the above Regulation. The Hon'ble Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in The Assistant Engineer and Another Vs. The Secretary, Manjoor Ksheera Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangham (Appeal No. 533/2005 and 534/2005 decided on 19-05-2010) has held that, “we do not find any supporting evidence to show that only one phase was recording consumption. The Forum below had cancelled the said bill finding that there was no evidence to show that the meter was recording only one of its phases and the other two phases were not recording. In the absence of evidence, we are not inclined to uphold the impugned bill for Rs. 28,975/- and the said direction of the Forum below to cancel Ext. A6 is only to be upheld.” In view of the above, we are only to hold that the complainant is not liable to pay the amount as per Ext. A2 the impugned bill.
6. Accordingly, we allow the complaint and set aside Ext. A2 bill dated 05-01-2011.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 31st day of May 2011.
