Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Licensee company cannot take recourse to coercive measure of disconnecting electricity supply for recovery of additional demand raised after expiry of two years limitation period MANU/SC/0203/2020 - (18 Feb 2020) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr. V. Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">In the present case, for the period July, 2009 to September, 2011, the Respondent along with other consumers were billed by the licensee company (the Appellant herein) under Tariff Code, 4400 @Rs.1.65 per unit. During the course of a regular audit being conducted by the Internal Audit Party, it was discovered that in 52 cases, including that of the Respondent, the bills were raised under the wrong Tariff Code 4400, instead of Tariff Code 9400, under which the prescribed tariff rate was Rs.2.10p. per unit. 
The licensee company issued a show cause notice to various consumers, including the Respondent, raising an additional demand for consumption of electricity for the past period from July, 2009 to September, 2011. On 25th May, 2015, the licensee company raised a bill demanding payment of Rs.29, 604 from the Respondent under Tariff Code 9400 for the period July, 2009 to September, 2011. Aggrieved by the said demand, the Respondent filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Ajmer. 
The District Forum vide Order allowed the Consumer Complaint, and held that the additional demand was time-barred. Thereafter, the State Commission vide Order allowed the Appeal of the licensee company, and set aside the Order passed by the District Forum. In the Revision Petition filed by the Respondent before the National Commission, the Order passed by the State Commission was set aside. The National Commission held that, the additional demand was barred by limitation under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The licensee company has filed the present Civil Appeals before present Court to challenge the final judgment passed by the National Commission. 
The proviso to Section 56(1) of Act, carves out an exception by providing that, the disconnection will not be effected, if the consumer either deposits the amount “under protest”, or deposits the average charges paid during the preceding six months. Sub-section (2) of Section 56 of Act by a non obstante clause provides that, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, shall be recoverable under Section 56 of Act, after the expiry of two years from the date when the sum became “first due”, unless such sum was shown continuously recoverable as arrears of charges for the electricity supplied, nor would the licensee company disconnect the electricity supply of the consumer. 
Electricity charges would become “first due” only after the bill is issued to the consumer, even though the liability to pay may arise on the consumption of electricity. Section 56(2) of Act however, does not preclude the licensee company from raising a supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period of two years. It only restricts the right of the licensee to disconnect electricity supply due to non-payment of dues after the period of limitation of two years has expired, nor does it restrict other modes of recovery which may be initiated by the licensee company for recovery of a supplementary demand. 
 The licensee company raised an additional demand on 18.03.2014 for the period July, 2009 to September, 2011. The licensee company discovered the mistake of billing under the wrong Tariff Code on 18th March, 2014. The limitation period of two years under Section 56(2) of Act had by then already expired. 
Section 56(2) of Act did not preclude the licensee company from raising an additional or supplementary demand after the expiry of the limitation period under Section 56(2) of Act in the case of a mistake or bona fide error. It did not however, empower the licensee company to take recourse to the coercive measure of disconnection of electricity supply, for recovery of the additional demand. As per Section 17(1)(c) of the Limitation Act, 1963, in case of a mistake, the limitation period begins to run from the date, when the mistake is discovered for the first time. The present Civil Appeals are accordingly disposed of.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Electricity supply, Additional demand, Recovery</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>