K.D.SEBASTIAN vs ELECTRICITY BOARD THE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR, KERALA STATE

THIS appeal arises out of the order passed by the Kerala State Commission, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant.

BRIEFLY, the facts are that the appellant runs a small Oil Mill since 1974. Problem of alleged excessive electric bills start in January, 1987 when against average bills, of amounts varying between Rs. 278/- and Rs. 337/- for the period August, 1986 - December, 1986, bill for the month of January, 1987 amounted to Rs. 920.65. Upon not getting any satisfactory reply from the respondents on the point of settlement or cause of excessive bill, the appellant approached the High Court (O.P. No. 5710/1987) for relief. In its order High Court ordered that the average consumption of electricity by the appellant be determined by the respondents and a revised bill be issued. Meanwhile on 31.1.1987 electricity connection of the appellant was disconnected for non-payment of the bills with regard to which the High Court ordered that in case the appellant pays a sum of Rs. 500/- plus reconnection charges to the 2nd respondent, then the latter shall restore the connection. According to the appellant, when he wanted to deposit Rs. 500/-, respondent No. 2 refused to accept. Long after the judgment of the High Court, the appellant who had been given the figures of outstanding amount of arrears to be paid by him, objected to it. The appellant was again served with the notice to pay the entire arrears by 4.5.1988 as a follow up of which, on non-payment of such amount of arrears by the appellant, respondents dismantled the service main and metering equipment on 20.6.1988. Aggrieved by this, the appellant again moved the High Court (4797/1998). High Court again ordered the respondent to prepare fresh bill from January, 1987 onwards within two weeks and the appellant was to file his objections within two weeks of receipt of the bill, a direction was also given to the respondents to dispose of these objections expeditiously. Pursuant to this direction respondent prepared a fresh bill amounting to Rs. 7,829.40 for the period 8/86 to 5/88. Objections were filed by the appellant, which were overruled by the respondents. This demand was again questioned by the appellant before the High Court (O.P. No. 6197/88). This O.P. was disposed of by the High Court in February, 1992 with the observations that the appellant may seek the remedy under Clause 48 of the Regulation relating to Conditions of Supply of Electricity Energy, 1990. Appeal filed by the appellant before respondent 3 in pursuance of the direction of High Court was rejected by respondent 3.

It is under these circumstances that the complainant/appellant filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking compensation of Rs. 2,74,041.46 with interest @ 18% from the date of filing the complaint. This amount comprised of interest to be paid by the appellant to the Bank against the loan obtained by him, as also losses suffered by him since disconnection effective 31.1.1987.

THE State Commission heard both the parties, as also examined the evidence adduced/produced before it after which it dismissed the complaint on two grounds. Firstly, that complaint is time barred i.e. cause of action having arisen on 31.1.1987 on account of disconnection of electricity by the respondents and the complaint having been filed in 1992 - almost after over five years of the cause of action hence barred by limitation. Secondly, as ordered more than once, there is no material on record to show that the appellant at any time approached the respondent for reconnection after depositing Rs. 500/- as ordered by the High Court, in the absence of which obviously electric connection could not be given; hence, for the present state of affairs, the appellant has to blame himself. There is no deficiency on the part of respondent. Thus, the complaint was dismissed.

IT is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the State Commission was not correct in holding the complaint time barred. IT is true that electric connection was disconnected on 31.1.1987 but there was continuing action by the appellant to get relief from the High Court and the last order was passed on 7.2.1992, hence the time limit counting should start from this date. On the other ground of dismissal, no arguments could be advanced by the learned Counsel. His main argument is that since the respondents admitted before the High Court that the meter was faulty in the last quarter of 1986, any bill, in this case enhanced electric bill was arbitrary and consequent disconnection based on non-payment of enhnaced bill should be held to be deficiency in service on the part of respondents 2 and 3 and these respondents should be ordered to pay the damages/compensation claimed, as the mill continued to be closed since 31.1.1987 on account of deficiency on the part of respondent. On the other hand it was argued by the learned Counsel for the respondents that complaint is clearly time barred. Electricity bill amount has been arrived at very careflly as per directions of the High Court, which was objected to by the appellant. He also filed an appeal before respondent 3 on the same ground i.e. on the subject of outstanding amounts to be paid by the appellant. This was also dismissed, hence there is no go for the appellant but to pay the amount and then approach the respondent for reconnection which they are willing to grant immediately subject to observing all the formalities associated with it. We have heard the arguments and perused the material on record. We find that cause of action i.e. disconnection of electric connection arose on 31.1.1987 and the complaint was filed in 1992 i.e. after five years of cause of action, so it is clearly barred by limitation. We are unable to accept the argument of the learned Counsel in this regard that since there was a continued cause of action hence period of limitation should commence from February, 1992 when in the third O.P. filed before High Court it passed the order. While we see that facts are correct on the face of it but CPA has its time limit defined .. (sic) for any request for condoning the delay/justifying the delay, an application need to be filed explaining the reasons/causes in defence of the delay so that the competent Court could take a view. In the instant case no such action was taken in the absence of which we cannot but agree with the decision of the State Commission holding the complaint time barred. On the other question of deficiency of service, we find that the High Court had ordered reconnection to be given to the appellant on the depositing of Rs. 500/- + reconnection charges. There is no material on record to support any follow up of the order of the High Court. In fact the State Commission has held that till the passing of order by it, the appellant had not applied for reconnection after completing the necessary formalities. Had the appellant done so, his mill would have been running enabling him to pay the outstanding amount to the Kerala State Electricity Board. We find that if there is any deficiency to be seen in the case, it rests with the appellant. During arguments on specific querry made to the learned Counsel for the appellant, he could not satisfy us about the follow up action taken up the appellant for reconnection.

WE see no ground to interfere with the order of the State Commission. Appeal is dismissed. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no order on costs. Appeal dismissed.