Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a statutory appeal challenging an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which dismissed a consumer complaint regarding a short assessment notice issued by the electricity distribution company. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing cotton yarn, received a notice claiming a short billing of Rs.1,35,06,585 due to an incorrect multiply factor applied in billing. The appellant contended that the demand was based on a mistake and invoked Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which bars recovery of dues after two years. The National Commission dismissed the complaint, stating it was a case of escaped assessment rather than deficiency in service. The Supreme Court, upon hearing the appeal, upheld the National Commission's decision, emphasizing that the raising of an additional demand due to short assessment does not constitute deficiency in service. The court noted that the appellant did not dispute the correctness of the billing claim and that the licensee was entitled to raise a demand for short billing. The court also clarified that the limitation period for recovery of dues begins only when a bill is issued, and the licensee may not disconnect supply but can pursue other legal remedies for recovery. The appeal was dismissed, but the court allowed the appellant eight weeks to pay the remaining balance of the demand amount already partially paid under an interim order.
Headnote
A) Consumer Protection - Deficiency in Service - No Deficiency Found - Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g) - The court held that the raising of an additional demand due to short assessment does not amount to deficiency in service as the consumer did not dispute the correctness of the claim made by the licensee. The National Commission's dismissal of the complaint was justified as it was a case of escaped assessment, not deficiency in service (Paras 21-22). B) Electricity Law - Limitation Period for Recovery - Electricity Act, 2003, Section 56(2) - The court clarified that the limitation period for recovery of dues commences only when a bill is raised. The licensee may not disconnect supply but can recover dues through other legal means, provided the demand is raised within the limitation period (Paras 12-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the demand raised by the electricity licensee constituted deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the National Commission's order. The court allowed the appellant eight weeks to pay the remaining balance of the demand amount already partially paid under an interim order.
Law Points
- Consumer protection
- electricity billing
- deficiency in service
- escaped assessment
- limitation period
