By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member: The complainant’s case is that as per the sale deed No.5788/2001 he had bought a portion of the four storied building situated near Thrissur Post Office road. There existed an electric connection in one of the rooms in the said building vide consumer No.2052. Though the connection was in the name of C.V. Antony he has no connection with it after the purchase and the electricity bills were paid by the complainant. No bills are pending to be paid. But the respondents have issued a notice dt. 21.10.04 to pay Rs.50,698.54 as electricity charges from 4/1998 to 1/2001. The complainant has informed the respondents that as per Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act it is time barred to collect electricity charge beyond three years and also that the complainant had already remitted all the bills he had received after 15.10.2001. But the supply was disconnected on 10.1.2005. Hence the complaint filed. 2. The counter filed by the respondents is that the Electricity Act 2003 and Electricity Supply code are not implemented in Kerala. So the disputed amount relates to the period prior to the implementation of Electricity Act. Hence it is not time barred. The disputed amount also relates to the electricity dues and so Section 539 of the Municipality Act is not concerned with it. The electricity connection vide consumer No.2052 comes under VII A Tariff and it relates to C.V. Antony as per the records kept by the respondents. Before spot billing cards system was prevailing and the consumers did not remit the monthly electricity charges as per the card from 2/99 to 1/01 and the additional bills for 9/98, 3/99, 9/99, 3/2000, 9/2000 and 1/2001 were not seen remitted. And there exists a total dues for Rs.50,699/- upto 1/2001. The charge for the electricity consumed by the complainant is demanded and the complainant is liable to pay this. The electricity connection comes under commercial tariff and the complainant is making profit with the use of this connection. The consumer who avail commercial connection cannot be defined as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint also lacks non-joinder of necessary parties since the original consumer is not a party in the complaint. Hence dismiss the complaint. 3. The points for consideration are: (1) Is the complainant liable to pay the Ext. P2 bill? (2) Is there any deficiency in service committed by the respondents? (3) Other reliefs and costs. 4. The evidence adduced consists of Exts. P1 to P3. No evidence is adduced by the respondents. Both of them have no oral evidence to adduce. 5. Points: The complainant’s case is that he has been paying the electricity charges since 2001 and there were no dues to be paid. But he was served with the Ext. P2 notice to pay Rs.50,698.54 as arrears of electricity charges from 4/1998 to 1/2001. As per Section 539 of the Kerala Municipality Act collecting the arrears beyond three years is illegal. Moreover he has paid all the electricity bills issued after 15.10.2001. So the complainant is not liable to pay the Ext. P2 bill. And also the disconnected power supply to be restored. In the counter the respondents stated that the electricity connection in question relates to C.V. Antony and it is under VII A tariff. The respondents are collecting the electricity charges and hence Section 539 of the Municipal Act is no way connected with this. The Ext. P2 bill relates to the electricity charges prior to the implementation of Kerala Electricity Act and hence no bar of time. 6. Before implementing the spot billing system on 2/2001 card system was prevailing the complainant defaulted the bills from 2/99 to 1/01 and also the additional bills for 9/98, 3/99, 9/99, 3/2000, 9/2000 and 1/2001 were also pending to be paid. Hence the total arrears in respect of the electricity connection in question is calculated as Rs.50,699/-. Hence the Ext. P2 bill is issued and the complainant is bound to pay it. 7. The complainant has stated that the electricity charges were paid by him even though the connection was in the name of C.V. Antony. At the same time he has not stated whether any action has been taken to transfer the ownership of the disputed electricity connection. The respondents have stated that the electricity connection vide consumer No.2052 is in the name of C.V. Antony as per the office records. 8. The complainant has stated that he has already paid the electricity bills issued after 15.10.2001. But the arrears shown in the Ext. P2 bill is upto 1/2001. The complainant is not aware that the former owner has paid all the electricity bills including additional bills. The Counsel for the complainant argued that the respondents have no right to collect the arrears beyond three years as per Section 539 of the Municipality Act. The amount involved in the Ext. P2 bill relates to electricity dues and hence Section 539 of the Municipality Act is not concerned with it. The respondents have stated that the electricity bills for the periods 2/99 to 1/01 were not paid and the additional bills for 9/98, 3/99, 9/99, 3/2000, 9/2000 and 1/2001 were kept pending. Ext. P1 shows that the sale deed was executed on 15.10.2001. So the complainant is liable to pay the electricity charges only after that. The disputed electricity charges relates to the period upto 1/2001. The complainant is not aware that the former owner has paid all the electricity charges including additional bills. But he is not liable to pay the dues made by the former owner. There is no mention in the sale deed to pay the electricity dues. 10. In the result, the complaint is allowed and Ext. P2 and P3 are stand cancelled. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 20th day of September 2010.
| | [HONORABLE Rajani P.S.] Member[HONORABLE Padmini Sudheesh] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE Sasidharan M.S] Member | | 
