By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President :

The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

The sum up of the complaint is as follows.

The Complainant's husband (Late) has been a consumer of electricity connection. The amount demanded by the Opposite Party were paid regularly towards the consumption of energy. For a period of 3 years the concern of the Complainant was not running hotel business and it remained closed. The opposite Party issued a demand notice cum disconnection notice under the electricity act during the period of 3/04 to 7/04 as a

- 2 -

back assessment vide the bill dated 26.7.2008 of Rs.9151/-. The bill dated 26.7.2008 in the way of back assessment during the period of March 2004 to July 2004 for Rs.9,151/- is barred by limitation and it is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Towards the pain and sufferings and for cost the Complainant is to be compensated with Rs.5,000/- along with other reliefs which found fit and proper.

2. The Opposite Party filed version. The sum up of the version filed by the Opposite Party is as follows. The consumer No.9501 from Electrical Section, Kalpetta is registered in the name of N. Ummer, Neelakandi (H), Kuttamangalam. The Opposite Party has not entered in to any agreement with the Complainant herein. The transfer of ownership of the consumer is not done. It is admitted that in the above consumer number bimonthly spot bills were paid regularly. The back assessment notice on demand was issued to the party during the period 7/03 to12/03. The meter installed in the premises of the Complainant was replaced when found defective. The faulty meter could not record the actual energy which was consumed. The consumer is demanded to pay the amount basing on the average of six

months recorded in the replaced meter. More over notice of demand was in pursuance of the direction of Regional Audit Officer, Kerala State Electricity Board. The Audit Officer, Kerala State Electricity Board is a necessary party and they are to be impleaded. The complaint filed is not sustainable and is to be dismissed with cost.

3. The points in consideration are.

1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Relief and cost.

(Contd.....3)

- 3 -

4. Point No.1:- The Complainant's agent filed the affidavit swearing the contentions Exts. A1 to A3 are the documents filed by the Complainant. The Opposite Party filed proof affidavit Ext.B1 is the documents marked on their side. Both the Complainant and Opposite Party rendered oral evidence.

5..The case of the Complainant is that the bill issued to the husband (Late) by the Opposite Party in the way of back assessment during the period of March 2004 to July 2004 is barred by limitation. Even when the establishment of the Complainant was not in function, the Complainant remitted whole amount charged by the Opposite Party. The consumer number of the connection is in the name of the Complainant's Late husband. According to the Opposite Party the bill demanded by the Opposite Parties are strictly complying to the consumption of energy which is based upon the average of six months meter reading. The complainant authorized one Sidhique to tender evidence and necessary followup's. The agent of the Complainant can also give evidence in that respect. Ext.A3 is the authorizing letter of the Complainant to give evidence by one Sidhique. The issue to be decided herein is whether the Opposite Party is legally entitled to claim the amount of Rs. 9,151/- from the Complainant. During the period 3/04 to 7/04 the demand cum disconnection notice issued is dated 26.7.2008 Indian Electricity Act 56(2) envisages to the period upon which the amount due is to be collected from a consumer. Section 56(2) reads “notwithstanding anything contained any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under the section shall be recovered after the period of 2 years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supplied of electricity”.

(Contd...4)

- 4 -

The bill demanded from the Opposite Party the charge towards the consumption of energy

from March 2004 to July 2004 and that is on 26.07.2008. The amount demanded prior to the period more than two years cannot be collected from the consumer. The bill demanded herein his beyond the limit of period when the amount become first due. The Opposite Party has committed deficiency in their service and the point No.1 is found accordingly.

6. Point No.2:- The Opposite Party demanded by the notice dated 26.7.2008 from the consumer Rs.9,151/- in the way of back assessment for the period March 2004 to July 2004 according to Ext.A2 the amount demanded vide the demand notice dated 26.7.2008 is beyond two years which has no legal footing and incorrect. The demand notice cum disconnection notice dated 26.7.2008 from the consumer No.9501 of Rs.9,151/- is quashed. The Complainant has not brought anything in evidence for compensation.

In the result, the complaint is allowed. The bill dated 26.7.2008 of consumer No.9501 is quashed, both the parties have to bear themselves the respective costs.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 28^th day of February 2009.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER-I : Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

• (Contd...5)

- 5 -

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant :

PW1. Sidhique Manager, Gyalaxi building.

Witness for the Opposite Party :

OPW1. Brown K.S Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B.

Exhibits for the Complainant :

A1. Bill dt. 24.1.08

A2. Back assessment bill dt. 26.7.08

A3. Authorization letter

Exhibits for the opposite parties :

B1. Consumer's Bimonthly Meter reading Register