Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a supplementary electricity bill issued by the Maharashtra State Electricity Board to an industrial consumer for escaped billing. The Board had issued a bill dated February 5, 1993 demanding Rs. 3,17,659 as supplementary charges. The consumer objected by letter dated February 16, 1993, but paid the amount under protest and approached the State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission alleging deficiency in service and limitation. The State Commission allowed the complaint on May 24, 1995, holding that the claim was barred by the three-year limitation prescribed under Section 60-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The Board appealed to the National Consumers' Disputes Redressal Commission, which reversed the State Commission's order, relying on a Bombay High Court decision and holding that there is no limitation for making a supplementary demand. The consumer then filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the three-year limitation for instituting a suit under Section 60-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 also barred the Board from exercising its statutory power under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to demand payment and disconnect supply for non-payment. The petitioner argued that Section 60-A prescribed a limitation of three years for the Board to recover arrears by suit and that the Board could not circumvent this by using Section 24. The Board contended that Section 24 confers an independent right to demand charges and discontinue supply, separate from the right to file a suit. The Supreme Court rejected the petitioner's contention. It held that Section 60-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 is an enabling provision concerning the enlargement of the period of limitation for suits in certain circumstances arising from the constitution of the Board. It does not extinguish the separate statutory right under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, which expressly empowers the licensee to demand any charge for energy and, after seven clear days' notice, cut off supply without prejudice to the right to recover by suit. The Court reasoned that the right to recover charges by suit is one matter, while the right to discontinue supply to a consumer who neglects to pay is another. The Board may exercise the latter power without recourse to a suit. The Court also observed that there is no deficiency in service in making a supplementary demand for escaped billing, even if negligence or collusion by subordinate staff led to incorrect recording or pilferage. Accordingly, the Supreme Court found no illegality warranting interference and dismissed the special leave petition.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Recovery of Charges and Discontinuance of Supply - Section 24 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 - Statutory Right to Demand and Disconnect - The Electricity Board issued a supplementary bill for escaped billing; the consumer paid under protest and later defaulted, leading to disconnection. The Supreme Court held that Section 24 empowers the licensee to demand any charge for energy and, after seven clear days' notice, cut off supply without prejudice to the right to recover by suit. This right is separate and independent of the suit remedy. (Paras 1-3) B) Limitation - Suit for Recovery of Electricity Arrears - Section 60-A of Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 - Enlargement of Limitation Period - The consumer contended that Section 60-A prescribed a three-year limitation for the Board to institute suit after its constitution, barring demand under Section 24. The Court rejected this, holding that Section 60-A is an enabling provision for suits and does not extinguish the Board's statutory right to demand payment and disconnect supply for non-payment under Section 24. (Paras 1-3) C) Consumer Protection - Deficiency in Service - Supplementary Demand for Escaped Billing - Consumer Protection Act - The Court held that making supplementary demand for escaped billing does not amount to deficiency in service, even if negligence or collusion by subordinate staff caused incorrect recording or pilferage. The consumer's remedy did not lie under the Consumer Protection Act. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Section 60-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 prescribes a three-year limitation for the Electricity Board to institute a suit for recovery of arrears and thereby bars the Board from exercising its power under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to demand payment and disconnect supply. Also, whether making a supplementary demand for escaped billing amounts to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.
Final Decision
The Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court upheld the National Commission's order, confirming that Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 empowers the Electricity Board to issue supplementary demand and disconnect supply for non-payment without recourse to a suit, and that Section 60-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 does not impose limitation on such demand. The Court found no deficiency in service in making supplementary demand for escaped billing.
Law Points
- Section 24 Indian Electricity Act
- 1910 confers independent statutory right to demand charges and disconnect supply
- Section 60-A Electricity (Supply) Act
- 1948 only prescribes limitation for suits and does not bar statutory demand
- supplementary demand for escaped billing does not constitute deficiency in service under Consumer Protection Act
- right to recover by suit is separate from right to discontinue supply.
