IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1930 RSA.No. 814 of 2008() --------------------- AS.51/2006 of SUB COURT, QUILANDY OS.123/2004 of MUNSIFF COURT, QUILANDY .................... (S): PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT --------------------------------------- K.P.ASHOKAN, WELDING WORKER, S/O.K.P.RAMANKUTTY, RESIDING AT NITYANANDA BHAVAN, PUNNUR P.O., KAKKUR VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.PRABHA R.MENON RESPONDENT(S): DEFENDANT ------------------------ 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. ASST. ENGINEER ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, BALUSSERY, KOYILANDY TALUK. THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.S.A.No.814 of 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10 th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT The plaintiff in O.S.No.123 of 2004 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Koyilandi is the appellant in this second appeal. The said suit was one for perpetual injunction restraining the K.S.E.B and its officials from enforcing a demand of Rs.46,055/- covered by Ext.A3 bill dated 19.7.04. 2. The appellant is running an industry in the name and style of Super Industries. The appellant had obtained an electric connection to the premises of the said industry and his Consumer number was 2923. As per Ext.A1 demand notice dated 13.8.2002 he was called upon to pay a sum of Rs.9935/-by way of energy charges. He did not pay the amount. Subsequently he was served with Ext.A2 disconnection notice dated 19.3.03. Still the amounts were not paid. Sometime in March 2003, the connection was disconnected. The plaintiff thereafter moved the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum . It is not known as to how that Forum entertained the petition. The R.S.ANo.814 of 2008 2 Forum not only entertained the petition but even gave instalment facility to the plaintiff, who however, did not avail of the facility extended to him. On 1.3.04, the Board claimed a sum of Rs.24708/-. Aggrieved by the said demand plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Board. Since the amount which is a condition precedent for entertaining an appeal was not deposited by the plaintiff before the Board, his appeal was not entertained. Thereafter the Board issued Ext.A3 demand notice dated 19.7.04 claiming a total amount of Rs.46,055/- (a breakup of which was Rs.9,335/- + Rs.24,708/- + Rs.11412/-). It was under these circumstances that the plaintiff approached the civil court seeking the above relief. 3. The suit was resisted by the K.S.E.B contending, inter alia, as follows:- Aggrieved by Ext.A1 demand notice for an amount of Rs.9935/- the plaintiff had approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kozhikode and had obtained a facility of instalment by way of 10 equal monthly instalments. He did not pay the instalments. Eventhough the service connection of the plaintiff was disconnected by the Board for non-payment of the R.S.ANo.814 of 2008 3 dues, the Board is entitled to get the fixed charge and the meter rent even after disconnection as per the existing rules. The demand for Rs.24,708/- was pursuant to the inspection by the Anti Power Theft Squad which had found that energy was consumed for construction purposes from February 2002 onwards contrary to the existing rules. The plaintiff's appeal to the Deputy Chief Engineer, Anti Power Theft Squad, Thiruvananthapuram was not entertained since he did not remit 25% of the bill amount. He was evading payment to the Board by filing suits one after the other before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and before the civil court. The plaintiff ought to have challenged the disputed bills by complying Regulation 48 of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. Revenue Recovery notice dated 19.7.08 issued by the Board for realising the demanded amounts is valid and legal. The plaintiff is not entitled to get any of the reliefs as prayed for in this suit. 4. The trial court as well as the lower appellate court held that the amounts claimed by way of revenue recovery proceedings were due from the plaintiff who was admittedly a defaulter and who had not even complied with the conditions R.S.ANo.814 of 2008 4 imposed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum which had extended to him the benefit of instalment facility. The findings recorded by the courts below are pure findings of fact and this court sitting in rarefied jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C is not inclined to consider whether the additional amount due under Ext.A3 was under Rule 34 (1)(c) or Rule 34 (1)(d) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy. No question of law, much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. The questions of law formulated in the memorandum of appeal do not arise for consideration in this second appeal which is accordingly dismissed in limine. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant prayed for some time to discharge the arrears of electrical energy demanded under Ext.A3. The appellant is given the benefit of equal monthly instalments to clear of the entire amount due. The Asst.Engineer,Electrical Section, Balussery, Koyilandy shall give intimation to the appellant within 2 weeks of receipt of a copy of this judgment regarding the total amount due from the appellant pursuant to Ext.A3 demand notice. The appellant shall R.S.ANo.814 of 2008 5 thereupon discharge the said liability in 7 equal monthly instalments commencing from the 7th day of receipt of intimation from the Asst.Engineer. The appellant shall produce a copy of this judgment before the 2nd defendant, Asst.Engineer within one month from today and obtain the intimation as aforesaid from that office. Dated this the 10 th day of November, 2008. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj