IMPORTANT POINT
The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in matters concerning electricity demand assessments under the Electricity Act, 2003, requiring parties to exhaust statutory remedies before seeking judicial intervention.

JUDGMENT :

G. ARUL MURUGAN, J.

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2011 passed in AS.No. 8 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2010 passed in OS.No. 278 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Erode.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit, challenging the demand of the defendant / Tamil Nadu Electricity Board is before this Court in the above appeal. The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2011 passed in AS.No. 8 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode, reversing the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2010 passed in OS.No. 278 of 2005 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Erode.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. According to the plaintiff, they are running a spinning mill at Ondikkaranpalayam. The defendant sanctioned 111.5 KW to the plaintiff on 28.05.2004 under S.E. No. 928 III B. A meter card was issued and the entry was made from 28.05.2004 to 29.10.2004 but subsequently new card was not issued and the plaintiff was making the payments. Since the billing for very same amount was made for 15.03.2005, 15.04.2005 and 16.05.2005, the plaintiff sent a letter on 02.06.2005 but the plaintiff was asked to pay the very same amount. On 23.06.2005, officials of the defendant board visited the premises and replaced the meter. On 29.08.2005, plaintiff received a letter demand on 29.08.2005 stating that even though the sanction load was only 112 K.W., power have been consumed over and above the sanctioned limit. Along with the letter a calculation to a tune of Rs.11,77,189/- was enclosed, out of which a sum of Rs.6,30,651/- was towards consumption charges and a sum of Rs.5,46,538/- was towards penalty. Challenging the demand, the plaintiff has filed a suit.

4. The defendant resisted the suit by filing written statement stating that the service connection for sanctioned load of 147 HP plus 2 K.V. lighting load in SC.No. 928 under Tarrif No. III B for industrial purpose was given and there was a defect in the meter and later on inspection it was found that the energy consumption was high. Based on which, the demand notice on 29.08.2005 was issued for a sum of Rs.11,77,189/- and after the ascertaining and working out the revised calculation, the additional demand was made for Rs.1,61,317/-, by which the plaintiff has to pay a total sum of Rs.13,38,506/-. Since the plaintiff has not exhausted his remedy by filing appeal before the Court, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the suit is not maintainable.

5. The plaintiff, without exhausting the remedies available in that Act, cannot maintain the suit. Further, as per their request without prejudice to the present case, existing LY CT Service Connection was disconnected on 19.11.2005 and at the same time new HT SC No. 220 for load of 201 KVA effected in its place and present dispute only relates to arrears in LTCT SC No. 928/IIIB.

6. During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A.20 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 and DW.2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to Ex.B.3 were marked.

7. The Trial court after appreciating the evidence and documents by judgment and decree dated 19.02.2010, dismissed the suit holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable, in view of the specific bar under the Electricity Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred, as 'the said Act'). The plaintiff being aggrieved filed AS.No. 8 of 2011 and the Lower Appellate Court after reappraising the evidence dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the plaintiff is before this Court on appeal.

8. This Court, by order dated 02.07.2012, ordered notice regarding admission.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that since the demand made by the defendants/Tamil Nadu Electri