Present :      Sri. C.T. Sabu, President

                                                Smt. Sreeja. S., Member

                                                Sri. Ram Mohan R., Member

15^th day of December 2022

CC 552/16 filed on 03/10/16

Complainant         :         Syriac Varghese K., S/o Late K.K. Varghese,

                                      Kalleli House, Tramway Road, Chalakkudy,

                                      Thrissur – 680 307.

                                      (By Adv. Sojan Job, Thrissur)

Opposite Parties    :   1)  Assistant Engineer, KSEB Section, Pariyaram,

                                      Velukkara Desom, Kanjirappilly P.O.,

                                      Chalakkudy Via, Thrissur – 680 721.

                                 2)  Secretary, KSEB, P.O. Pattom,

                                      Thiruvananthapuram, Pin – 695 004.

                                 3)  Agriculture Officer, Krishi Bhavan, Pariyaram,

                                      P.O. Mothirakkanny, Chalakkudy Via,

                                      Thrissur – 680 721.

                                      (OP 1 & 2 By Adv. M.K. Girishmohan, Thrissur)

F I N A L  O R D E R

By Sri. Ram Mohan R, Member :

1. The complaint in brief, as averred :

          The complaint is filed under Section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The government vide GO (MS) No.311/95/AD dtd.31/08/1995 provided free electricity to the small scale agriculturists / farmers holding land up to an extent of two hectors. Statedly, the complainant on behalf of his father, in May 1997 applied before the 3^rd opposite party to avail of the said facility in respect of consumer No.1461 & 346 which related to consumption of electricity for two motors used for agricultural purpose. The said applications were statedly allowed. Subsequently on 14/12/01, the 1^st opposite party issued a notice to the father of the complainant claiming a sum of Rs.6,222/-  towards arrears for the period from 06/97 to 10/2001, which was subsequently revised by the 1^st opposite party to a sum of Rs.4,613/- by a bill dtd. 19/01/02, which was challenged by the father of the complainant before the Munsiff court, Chalakkudy by OS 195/2002. Consequent, to the death of the complainant’s father, the complainant was also impleaded amongst others as plaintiff in the said OS. The Munsiff court statedly decreed  in favour of the complainant, which was appealed by the 1^st and the 2^nd opposite parties before the Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda by AS 27/2006. The Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda on 23/09/08 confirmed the judgement of the lower Court with the modification of directing the 3^rd opposite party to conduct an enquiry and make a report regarding the eligibility of the complainant for exemption for the period, concerned.

          Allegedly, the 1^st & the 2^nd opposite parties on 20/04/11 disconnected the power supply to the complainant, claiming arrear of Rs.24,000/-, which act of the opposite parties was challenged by the complainant before this Commission by CC 190/11. The 3^rd opposite party, thereafter on 14/11/12 conducted an enquiry as ordered by the Sub Court and issued an Office Order which declared the complainant eligible for exemption with effect from 23/09/08 only.  The complainant terms this finding of the 3^rd opposite party that he is eligible for exemption only with effect from 23/09/08, illegal. The consequent notice and bill issued by the 1^st opposite party claiming arrears of Rs.49,386/- with respect to Consumer NO.1461 and warning disconnection of power, were also termed illegal by the complainant. The complainant alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint. The complainant prays for an order declaring the complainant eligible for exemption with effect from 05/97 & voiding the bill for Rs.49,386/- issued by the 1^st opposite party.

2) NOTICE :

          Having been noticed by the Commission, the opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.

3. Version of the Opposite Parties :

The 3^rd opposite party avers that the complainant had not made any application before them to avail the benefits of free electricity w.e.f. 01/04/1998. It is also their stance that as per the enquiry conducted by them in compliance with the order of the Sub Court, the complainant has been given the benefits of free electricity from 09/2008 onwards.

The 1^st & the 2^nd opposite parties contend that their acts are in accordance with the finding of the 3^rd opposite party that the complainant was eligible for the benefits of free electricity only w.e.f 23/09/08 and not prior to that.

4. Evidence :

The complainant produced documental evidence that had been marked Ext. P1 to P7, apart from affidavit and notes of argument. The 1^st & the 2^nd opposite parties produced documental evidence that had been marked Exts. R1 to R3, apart from notes of argument. No documents produced on the part of the 3^rd opposite party, but version.

          5) Deliberation of evidence and facts of the case :

          The Commission has minutely examined the facts and evidence of the case. Ext. P1 is the Demand and Disconnection Notice dtd. 26/04/16 for a sum of Rs.49,386/- issued to the complainant (Consumer No.1461) by the 1^st opposite party. Ext. P2 is the 1^st opposite party’s letter No. BB/CDRF/PYM/2016-17/18/26-04-2016 addressed to the complainant. Ext. P3 is copy of the judgement dtd.30/09/05 of Munsiff court, Chalakkudy in OS 195/02. Ext. P4 is copy of the judgement dtd. 23/09/08 of the Sub Court, Irinajalakkuda in AS 27/06. Ext. P5 is copy of the order No. PRM37/2012 dtd. 19/11/12 issued by the 3^rd opposite party. Ext. P6 is Commission’s order dtd. 29/02/16 in CC 190/11. Ext. P7 is the 3^rd opposite party’s letter No. PRM-06/2017-2018 dtd. 31/08/17 addressed to Adv. Syriac John.

          Ext. R1 is copy of the Commission’s Order dtd. 29/02/16 in CC 190/11 (copy of Ext. P5). Ext. R2 is copy of Circular No. TA(1)-24509/98 dtd 11/05/98 issued by the office of the Director of Agriculture. Ext. R3 is copy of Ext. R2 with endorsement thereon relating to distribution of the same to other officers.

          6) Points of deliberation :

          (i)      Maintainability ?

                   If yes,

(ii)     Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the

          opposite parties ?

 (iii)   Whether the complainant is entitled to any remedy from the part of

          the opposite parties ?

          (iv)    Costs ?

7) Point No.(i)

          The crux of the complaint relates to the allegedly illegal finding of the 3^rd opposite party in Ext. P5 order that the complainant is eligible for exemption (i.e. eligibility for free electricity) only w.e.f. 23/09/08 and not prior to that. Ext. P5 order is resulted from an enquiry conducted by the 3^rd opposite party in compliance of the directions in Ext. P4 judgement of the Sub Court, Irinjalakkuda. The impugned Ext. P1 & P2 bill and notice are issued consequent to the findings in the Ext. P5 report only. Irregularities, if any, in Ext. P5 (report) which is prepared as per Ext. P4 judgement of the Sub Court, are Civil Court matters, for remedies, if any, required in respect of which, appropriate Civil Courts have to be agitated.  Pertinent Civil Court judgements are binding on the complainant, as well. This matter has already been vividly expressed by this Commission by Ext. P6 order itself. Resultantly, this compliant is hit by the doctrine of ‘res judicata’. Hence we are of the considered view that the compliant is not maintainable before this Commission.

          Needless to say, the other points mentioned above, warrant no consideration of the Commission.

          In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Commission this the 15^th day of December 2022.

      Sd/-                                              Sd/-                                              Sd/-          

Sreeja S.                                    Ram Mohan R                        C. T. Sabu

Member                                           Member                                              President

                                                    Appendix

Complainant’s Exhibits :

Ext. P1 Demand and Disconnection Notice dtd. 26/04/16 for a sum of

             Rs.49,386/- issued to the complainant (Consumer No.1461) by the 1^st

             opposite party.

Ext. P2 the 1^st opposite party’s letter No. BB/CDRF/PYM/2016-17/18/26-04-

            2016 addressed to the complainant.

Ext. P3 copy of the judgement dtd.30/09/05 of Munsiff court, Chalakkudy in

             OS 195/02.

Ext. P4 copy of the judgement dtd. 23/09/08 of the Sub Court Irinajalakkuda

             in AS 27/06.

Ext. P5 copy of the order No. PRM37/2012 dtd. 19/11/12 issued by the 3^rd

             opposite party.

Ext. P6 Commission’s order dtd. 29/02/16 in CC 190/11.

Ext. P7 the 3^rd opposite party’s letter No. PRM-06/2017-2018 dtd. 31/08/17

             addressed to Adv. Syriac John.

Opposite Parties’ Exhibits :

Ext. R1  copy of the Commission’s Order dtd. 29/02/16 in CC 190/11 (copy of

              Ext. P5).

Ext. R2 copy of Circular No. TA(1)-24509/98 dtd 11/05/98 issued by the office

             of the Director of Agriculture.

Ext. R3 copy of Ext. R2 with endorsement thereon relating to distribution of the    

             same to other officers.

                                                                                                     Id/-                                                                                                        Member