Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute between the Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (appellant/licensee) and Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla (respondent/consumer) regarding an additional demand for electricity charges. The respondent was billed under Tariff Code 4400 at Rs.1.65 per unit from July 2009 to September 2011. During an internal audit on 18.03.2014, it was discovered that the wrong tariff code (4400 instead of 9400 at Rs.2.10 per unit) had been applied in 52 cases, including the respondent's. On 25.05.2015, the licensee raised a supplementary bill for Rs.29,604/- for the period July 2009 to September 2011. The respondent filed a consumer complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Ajmer, which allowed the complaint on 21.06.2016, holding the demand time-barred. The State Commission reversed this decision on 30.05.2017. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, in revision, set aside the State Commission's order, holding the demand barred by limitation under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The licensee appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court framed three issues: the meaning of 'first due' in Section 56(2); when an amount becomes 'first due' in case of a billing mistake; and whether disconnection can be made after two years in such cases. The appellant argued that 'first due' should be the date of discovery of the mistake, while the amicus curiae contended it refers to the date of the original bill. The Court held that 'first due' means the date when the original bill was raised, not the date of detection of mistake. The two-year limitation under Section 56(2) runs from the date of the first bill. If a mistake is discovered after two years, the licensee cannot disconnect supply but may pursue other remedies. The Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the National Commission's order that the additional demand was time-barred for disconnection. The Court clarified that the licensee could still recover the amount through other legal means, but not by disconnection.
Headnote
A) Electricity Law - Disconnection of Supply - Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 - Interpretation of 'first due' - The term 'first due' refers to the date when the original bill for electricity supply was raised, not the date of discovery of a mistake in billing. The two-year limitation period under Section 56(2) for disconnection runs from the date of the first bill. (Paras 6-10) B) Electricity Law - Limitation for Recovery - Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 - Mistake in billing - If a mistake is detected after two years from the original bill, the licensee cannot disconnect supply but may resort to other modes of recovery. The bar under Section 56(2) applies only to disconnection, not to other remedies. (Paras 6-10) C) Electricity Law - Consumer Protection - Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 - The Act is consumer-friendly; the limitation period protects consumers from stale demands for disconnection. The licensee must continuously show arrears in subsequent bills to keep the sum recoverable by disconnection. (Paras 6-10)
Issue of Consideration
What is the meaning of 'first due' in Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003; whether disconnection can be made after two years from the original bill when a mistake in billing is discovered later.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeals, holding that the additional demand raised by the licensee was time-barred for the purpose of disconnection under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003. The Court clarified that the licensee may pursue other remedies for recovery of the amount, but not by disconnection of electricity supply.
Law Points
- Interpretation of 'first due' in Section 56(2) of Electricity Act
- 2003
- Limitation period for disconnection of electricity supply
- Effect of mistake in billing on limitation
- Consumer protection under Electricity Act
