By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:

The gist of the case is as follows.

The Complainant is the consumer of electricity connection No.3020. The connection is to the hotel “New Form Hotel” owned and run by the Complainant. The Complainant purchased the premises on 17.04.2008 and was paying the electricity bills regularly.

2. On 26.07.2008 the Opposite Party has issued a bill for Rs.30,287/- . The amount was charged as back assessment for the period from 9/03 to 1/04. The Complainant explained to the Opposite Party that the bill is addressed to the 3^rd Opposite Party, the previous owner of the premises and he is not bound to pay the bill since he was not a consumer during the period. But the Opposite Party did not accept the stand of Complainant and stated their intension to disconnect in case of non payment of the bill. The K.S.E.B has no right to disconnect the service for which the Complainant is the consumer for the time being. If the K.S.E.B has any dues from the 3^rd Opposite Party, the same has to be recovered from him only. The amount covered by the disputed bill is barred by limitation also. Hence the Complainant is praying for an order cancelling the bill for Rs.30,287/- dated 26.7.2008. If the bill is legally sustainable, 3^rd Opposite Party may be directed to pay it. The 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Party may be restrained from disconnecting the service. The Complainant also prays for a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

3. The Opposite Parties filed version. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 state that the Complainant is not a consumer as far as connection No. 3020 is concerned. The registered consumer of connection No.3020 is one Sri. Ibrahim Kashayankandy. The Complainant and 3^rd Opposite Party are legally bound to inform the K.S.E.B about the sale of the premises. They have not done so, the board can only disconnect the supply if the bill is not paid.

4. It is true that all the bimonthly spot bills issued to consumer No.3020 have been paid. A bill for Rs.30287 was issued to the consumer, being the back assessment from 9/03 to 1/04. This was done on the basis of inspection report of the Regional Audit Officer, Regional Audit Office, Kalpetta. The meter installed at the premises of the consumer was found not working properly and it had been replaced on 23.1.2004. After changing the meter the actual consumption recorded in the good meter was found to be very high. This means that the actual consumption was not recorded in the faulty meter. So, the consumer was back assessed for six month prior to the date of replacing the meter on the average consumption recorded in the replaced meter. Since the bill is issued in 07/2008, it is unaffected by the clauses of limitation. Hence the Opposite Party prays for an order dismissing the complaint.

5. The Opposite Party No.3 and Opposite Party No.4 to Opposite Party No. 7 filed their version and stated that the demand notice dated 26.7.2008 is legally unsustainable and hopelessly barred by limitation. They admit that they were the previous owners of the premises occupied by the 'New Form Hotel'. But they were paying the bimonthly bills in time and there were no arrears. These Opposite Parties do not know how the board has assessed the bill amount of Rs.30,287/-. The board did not furnish any data or information regarding this to these Opposite Parties. So there is deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties. Hence the Opposite Parties No. 3 to 7 pray for an order cancelling the bill dated 26.7.2008 for Rs.30,287/-.

6. Complainant filed proof affidavit and documents were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A5 on the side of the Complainant. Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 also filed proof affidavit and Ext.B1 to Ext.B3 were marked for the Opposite Parties.

7. Hence, the matters to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the side of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 ?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief?

8. Point No.1:- In this case it is admitted that the disputed bill is issued for the assumed consumption of energy during the period from 9/03 to 1/04. The bill is issued on 26.7.2008. Issuing bill for nearly 5 years previous energy consumption is not fair or just on the side of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The Assistant Audit Officer's inspection was on 6/05 the audit report was forwarded to the 2^nd Opposite Party on 8/05. But the bill is issued on 26.7.2008. Delay of 3 years in issuing bill is not at all justified. The conclusion of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 that the bill is unaffected by the clauses of limitation since it was issued in 07/2008 is not acceptable. As per Section 56 of the Electricity Act, no sum due shall be recoverable after the period 2 years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied. The board is issuing bimonthly bills and the energy charge becomes due within 2 months. The consumption from 9/03 to 1/04 should not be charged or billed in 2008. For the above said reasons, the point No.1 is found against the Opposite Party.

9. Point No.2:- As it is found that the disputed bill is issued against law, the complainant is entitled to get the bill canceled.

Hence, the complaint is partly allowed. The bill for Rs.30,287 dated 26.07.2008 issued to connection No.3020 is quashed. No order as to cost or compensation.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the day of 30^th June 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER- I: Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant :

Nil

Witnesses for the Opposite Party :

Nil

Exhibits for the Complainant :

A1. Copy of Agreement.

A2. Certificate dt.12.08.2008

A3. Demand and Disconnection notice dt. 26.07.2008

A4. Bill

A5. Receipt. dt. 07.07.2008

Exhibits for the Opposite Party :

B1. True copy of audit report. dt .23.08.2005

B2. True copy of meter changing register

B3. True copy of meter reading register.