Case nº Revision Petition No. 4091 of 2010 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, January 13, 2016 (case 1. Assistant Secretary, Electrical Sections & Anr., 2. Thrissur Corporation Vs N. Udayakumar)

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Biju P. Raman, Advocate and Ms. Usha Nandini, Advocate and For Respondents: Sh. Amit Sharma, Proxy Counsel
PresidentMr. K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member
Resolution DateJanuary 13, 2016
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member

  1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners against the order dated 28.5.2010 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 176 of 2007 -- Asstt. Secretary, Electrical Sections & anr. Vs. N. Udayakumar by which, appeal was partly allowed.

  2. Brief facts of the case are that Complainant/respondent filed complaint before District forum and submitted that complainant is a consumer of electricity. Complainant received arrear notice dated 10.3.2004 and 23.3.2004 for Rs.1,68,005/- and Rs.4,830/- pertaining to two connections for the period upto March, 2001 on 25.9.2004. Complainant is regular payee of electricity bills and aforesaid illegal bills are barred by limitation; hence, demand be quashed. OP resisted complaint and submitted that bill was issued for arrears which have not been paid by complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint and directed OP to cancel aforesaid demand and pay Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1500/- as costs which will be recovered from OP No. 2. Appeal filed by OPs was partly allowed and order allowing recovery from OP No. 2 was set aside and rest of the order was upheld against which, this revision petition was filed along with application for condontion of delay.

  3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

  4. Delay had already been condoned by order dated 11.5.2011.

  5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that inspite of right to recover arrears of electricity charges, learned District Forum committed error in quashing demand and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal to this extent; hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned orders be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law; hence, revision petition be dismissed.

  6. The core question to be decided is whether notice dated 10.3.2004 and 23.3.2004 regarding recovery of arrears of electricity charges upto March, 2001 were time barred.

  7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Commission in R.P. No. 2154 of 2009 -- T.S. Mohandas Vs. Asstt. Secretary & Anr. observed that Section 56 (2) of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 is prospective in nature and recovery of amount under...

To continue reading

Request your trial