M.V. LONAPPAN, Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this writ petition is regarding the accuracy of Exts.P1 to P4 invoices as confirmed by Ext.P11 order. Exts. P1 to P4 are invoices issued by the respondents making supplementary demand on the petitioners for energy charges based on an audit report dated 26/5/2008 mentioned therein. It would appear that pursuant to the audit report and on the basis that the meters installed in the premises of the petitioners were defective, their consumption has been estimated on an average basis and demand has been made by Exts.P1 to P4. On its receipt, petitioners objected to the aforesaid invoices by filing Exts.P5 to P8. Apart from the illegality of raising such demands, they also contended that the demand made was barred by limitation by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Regulation 18 of the Supply Code.

(2.) PURSUANT to Ext.P9 judgment rendered by this Court in WA 54/09, petitioners were heard by the appellate authority and the appellate authority by Ext.P11 order substantially confirmed the demand. It is at that stage this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) HOWEVER , on the merits of the contention regarding the accuracy of Exts.P1 to P4 is concerned, although the learned Counsel for the petitioners attempted to substantiate the said contention by relying on the various provisions of the Supply Code and the judgments rendered by this Court and the Apex Court, learned Counsel for the Board relied on the judgment of this Court in Eminent Sea Foods (P) Ltd. v. K.S.E.B, 2008(2) KLT 294. In that judgment, this Court has taken the view that in cases where disputes of this nature are involved, the remedy available to the aggrieved is to seek relief before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum, and if still aggrieved, by moving the Ombudsman.