Civil courts are prohibited from adjudicating disputes related to energy assessments under the Electricity Act, mandating alternative remedies be pursued first.

JUDGMENT

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 04.11.2011 passed in AS.No.9 of 2010 on the file of II Additional Sub Court, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.11.2009 passed in OS.No.614 of 2007 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.

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

3. According to the plaintiff, he had an Ice factory under the name and style “Alps Ice and Cold Storage” in Thiruppapuliyur, Cuddalore-2. When he was running the ice factory, on 06.06.1998, the defendant / Electricity Department inspected the meter and came to the conclusion that there was theft of energy by way of tampering the meter. The defendant has issued a letter dated 11.06.1998 claiming an amount of Rs.2,01,058/-. The plaintiff filed a suit in OS.No.349/1998 which was dismissed as the Civil Court jurisdiction was impliedly barred. So, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal filed before the first defendant. The first defendant has passed an order by reducing the demand from Rs.2,01,058/- to Rs.1,17,135/-. The plaintiff paid the demand in instalments and sent a letter for reconnection. While so, the defendant issued a letter dated 15.10.2007 for a sum of Rs.1,19,470/- payable for the charges of 33290 units as per the audit. Further, a sum of Rs.1,92,114/- has to be paid towards interest from 16.09.1998 to 15.08.2007. According to the plaintiff, he closed the ice factory on 25.06.1998 and he has not consumed the electricity and as such the demand of Rs.3,11,811/- is illegal and has come up with the suit to declare the demand as illegal and for mandatory injunction to reconnect the service connection.

4. The defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement that the suit is not maintainable under the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Civil Court has no jurisdiction to maintain the suit questioning the assessment.

5. The plaintiff, without exhausting the remedies available in that Act, cannot maintain the suit. Further, the omission of the demand and collection of the said sum of Rs.1,19,470/- was also pointed out in the audit. For the belated payment, the plaintiff is liable to pay a total sum of Rs.3,11,811/- based on which the demand notice was issued.

6. During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A.5 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked.

7. The Trial court after appreciating the evidence and documents by judgment and decree dated 16.11.2009, 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.9 of 2010 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 Electricity Board was illegal, they have rightly approached the Civil Court challenging the demand whereby, the plaintiff will have an opportunity to let in evidence and establish his claim.

10. The learned counsel further contended that the ice factory run by the plaintiff was closed on 25.06.1998 itself and there was no possibility for the plaintiff to use the electricity. The learned counsel further contended that when the plaintiff has paid the amount as per original demand, the present demand along with interest based on audit is not sustainable.

11. The learned counsel vehemently contended that further the demand made by the Electricity Board is beyond the p