(JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA, PRESIDING MEMBER)

1.       Present revision petition has been field against the order dated 30.4.2019 in first appeal No.301/2015 of the petitioners against the order dated 12.2.2015 in complaint No.CC/658/2012 of the respondent (hereinafter called “the complainant.)

2.       The admitted facts of the case are that the complainant was running a textile shop for earning his livelihood by means of self-employment and an electricity connection was provided to him by the petitioners. During the inspection in November, 2005 he has found using the more electricity load than was sanctioned to him. A provisional bill was issued to him on 11.1.2006. Thereafter, on the application of the complainant, misuse of electricity was regularized in the year 2008 and extra load was sanctioned in his favour. Thereafter a bill dated 14.9.2012 was issued to the complainant for the period February, 2006 to December, 2008 for a sum of Rs.1,07,476/-. The complainant filed the complaint alleging that since the said bill was issued under Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act after four years, the bill was barred by limitation and no demand can be raised.

3.       The complaint was contested by the petitioner. They took several objections including that the complaint was not maintainable and complainant was not a consumer and that the textile shop was a commercial establishment. They had also submitted that this bill had been issued for the period when the unauthorized load was being used by the complainant and was not regularized and that since this amount was due, therefore the complainant was liable to pay that amount and the limitation clause was not applicable.  Parties led their evidences.

4.       After hearing the arguments of all the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint and set aside the impugned bill.

5.       The said order was impugned by the petitioner before the State Commission. Similar arguments were raised before the State Commission. On the contention that the complainant was not a consumer, the State Commission held that since the complainant was running the textile for his livelihood by means of self-employment, he was a consumer within the definition of Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act and rejected the argument that he was not a consumer. As regards the raising of the bill for the period 2006 to 2008 in the year 2012, the State Commission relying on Section 56 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act held that this provision clearly bars the raising of any such bill after the period of two years when the bill has first became due and concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

6.       This order is impugned before us. Similar contentions have been raised. We have heard the arguments and perused the record. The jurisdiction of this Commission is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences and reach to its own conclusion. The Court can intervene only when the petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269  has held as under: -

“13.  Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

7.       Same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“23. The  National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

8.       In the present case, the subject bill dated 14.9.2012 was for the period February, 2006 to December, 2008 during which period the complainant was using extra load of the electricity than was sanctioned in his favour. Admittedly, this extra load was regularized in his favour in the year 2008. Section 56 (2) of the Indian Electricity Act clearly bars raising of any such bill beyond the period of two years from the date when it became due. Evidently the bill related to the period February 2006 to December, 2008, became due in December 2008, i.e., on the date when the extra load was sanctioned/regularized in favour of the complainant. Any bill for that period cannot be raised on expiry of two years.  The bill was raised in the year 2012.   We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order.  No miscarriage of justice is shown to have been done in the present case.

The present revision petition has no merit and the same is dismissed.