SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellants were the opposite parties and the respondent was the complainant in OP:367/02 which was filed for getting P1 bill dated:10..1..2000 cancelled. The complainant alleged deficiency of service in issuing the said arrear bill. The appellants/opposite parties contended that the complainant is not a consumer as he availed the service of the opposite party/KSEB for commercial purpose. Admittedly the complainant consumed energy for running a vegetable shop. It is to be noted that the service availed for commercial purpose was taken away from the purview of the definition âconsumer only by the amendment of the Act which came into force on 15..3..2003. Prior to the said amendment service availed for commercial purpose was also brought under the definition consumer as defined under Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act. In the present case on hand, the disputed bill was issued on 10..1..2000 claiming arrears of current charges for the period from March 1996 to January 2000. So, the service availed by the complainant as consumer would come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The appellants/opposite parties have also contended that the complaint in OP:367/02 is barred by limitation. Admittedly the disputed arrear bill was issued on 10..1..2000. But the complaint in this case was preferred on 30..5..2002. Thus, there was a delay of 4 months in preferring the said complaint. It is to be noted that the complainant has not filed any petition to get the delay condoned. There is no whisper in the complaint filed in OP:367/02 for getting the said delay condoned. So, the Forum below cannot be justified in condoning the said delay without any such request from the side of the complainant/consumer. As per Sec.24 A of the Consumer Protection Act the complaint is to be filed within 2 years of the cause of action. In this case the arrears of electricity charges were for the period from March 1996 to January 2000 and the said demand was made on 10..1..2000. So, the period of limitation will commence from 10..1..2000. The complainant ought to have filed the complaint on or before 10..1..2002. If that be so, the complaint filed on 30..5..2002 is barred by limitation by virtue of section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Forum below was of the view that the claim is not barred by limitation in view of the lawyer notice issued on 15..4..2002. It is a settled position that the period of limitation cannot be extended by issuing lawyer notice. In other words, a time barred claim cannot be revived by issuing lawyer notice. So, the case of the appellants that the complaint is barred by limitation is to be accepted. The Forum below failed to consider that aspect of the case in its correct perspective. So, this Commission have no hesitation to hold that the complaint in OP:367/02 is barred by limitation.
3. The Forum below was of the view that the claim for arrears of electricity charges is hit by Sec.56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003. It is to be noted that the provisions of Sec.56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act 2003 has no retrospective operation. The claim for arrear of electricity charges was made on 10..1..2000. It was for the period from March 1996 to January 2000. It is also to be noted that under the electricity Act, 1910 there was no limitation provided for the arrears of energy charges due to the licensee. If that be so, the arrear of energy charges claimed by P1 bill is not nit by Sec.56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The said finding of the Forum below is liable to be quashed. Hence this Commission do so.
4. The P1 bill was issued for arrears of energy charges for the period from March 1996 to January 2000. It is the case of the complainant that he had not consumed energy during the said period and the shop was closed in 1997. It is also alleged that the electricity connection was dismantled in the year 1998. But the said case of the complainant has been denied by the opposite parties. It is categorically contended by the opposite parties that the service connection was disconnected on 14..2..2000 and the apparatus was dismantled thereafter. If that be so, the complainant being the beneficiary was liable to pay the minimum charges till the connection was dismantled as provided under the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Thus, in all respects the P1 bill issued by the opposite parties was legally sustainable and the complainant is liable to pay the amount covered by P1 dated:10..1..2000. The impugned order passed by the Forum below is liable to be set aside. Hence this Commission do so.
In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated:26..4..2007 passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP:367/02 is set aside. The complaint in OP:367/02 is also dismissed. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs through out.