Sri.K. Vijayakumaran, President.

            This is a complaint filed by the complainant seeking to quash the Revenue Recovery proceedings initiated by opp.parties 1 and 2 and also to quash the bill for electricity charges issued by opp.party 4 which is the basis for R.R. proceedings.

Heard both sides.

The complainant’s case is that he had a house with a domestic connection within the jurisdiction of opp.party 4 which he had  rented out.   The tenant misused the domestic connection for commercial purpose land opp.party 4 on detecting the same changed the domestic tariff to commercial tariff and issued  electricity bills accordingly.  Subsequently  the complainant evicted the tenant and applied to opp.party 4 to change the commercial tariff to domestic tariff and remitted necessary fee.  But despite several oral and written  representations the tariff was not changed.

          It is worth pointing out in this context that the complainant has not approached any higher officials of opp.party 4 when opp.party4 failed to take action  on his application.   The normal human  conduct in such circumstances  would be to approach the higher authorities  and there is no satisfactory explanation for not doing so.  It is also pertinent to point out that  in para9 of the complaint the complainant  has stated that on 27.7.2007, 25.9.2007, 25.1.2008, 15.2.2008 and 9.4.2008 opp.party 4 has issued demand notices to the complainant but he ignored the same on the ground that those are unnecessary and arbitrary.  It is thereafter that opp.parties have initiated RR proceedings. Even assuming that the bill is unnecessary or arbitrary it is not for the consumer to take a decision.  Every prudent person when he receive  arbitrary and unnecessary electricity bills would take appropriate action by approaching the higher officials of opp.party 4 rather than ignoring the same and such conduct of the complainant has resulted in the imitation of Revenue Recovery Proceedings.

          The Revenue Recovery Act bars jurisdiction of Civil Courts and other authorities which includes the Consumer Forum.  The learned  counsel for the complainant has not produced any authority which gives jurisdiction to Consumer fora to  interfere with the R.R. proceedings nor could we find one.  Therefore we are of the view that this complaint as it is brought is not maintainable before this Forum.

          In the result this complaint is dismissed as it is not maintainable.  No costs.

 Dated this the 20th day of April, 2009