The present revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 26.02.2015 of the Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Patna (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal no. 58 of 2014.

2.     The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was having an electricity connection at his residence in his village and was paying Rs.50/- per month as per the norms of the village area. The village was converted into an urban area by a notification dated 23.06.1993. On the request of the complainant a meter was installed in the premises of the complainant in September 1995. The complainant received a bill for Rs.20,000/- against which the complainant could not get any information from the opposite party about the details of the bill, therefore, he filed a consumer complaint no.5 of 2006 before the District Forum. The complaint was contested, however, the District Forum ordered that the bill be charged as per rates for rural area. The execution was filed by the complainant of this order dated 27.06.2011. During the pendency of the execution, the connection was disconnected by the opposite party on 20.08.2013. The opposite party also filed an appeal before the State Commission being FA no. 58 of 2014 and the State Commission allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum. Hence, the present revision petition.

3.     The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the opposite party never informed the details of the bill for Rs.20,000/- and therefore, the complainant was constrained to file a consumer complaint. The complainant was always ready to pay the bills as per rate approved by the opposite party. He is still ready to pay the bills @ Rs.100/- which is the minimum rate charged for the urban area. He is also ready to pay the bill as per the meter reading. Further, he had filed the complaint for the lumpsum bill of Rs.20,000/- for which no justification was given by the opposite party. He further states that the electricity connection was disconnected on 20.08.2013 and an FIR was lodged against him. The matter relating to FIR, is still pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Patna.

4.     It was further argued by the learned counsel for the complainant that the State Commission has not passed any order in respect of the bill which was the main issue in dispute.

5.     On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the complainant has never paid any bill and was using the electricity without paying any charges. Finally the electricity was disconnected on 20.08.2013 and thereafter an FIR was also lodged against the complainant for stealing the electricity. Learned counsel for the respondent has also referred to the judgment of this Commission in the case of Upendra Prasad Gupta vs The Chairman, Bihar State Electricity Board, Vidyut Bhawan, Patna and Ors (in RP no. 2380 of 2004) decided on 29.04.2005, wherein it has been held by this Commission that person who is not paying the bill of electricity is not a genuine consumer and his case should not be entertained. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent has stated that the complaint was  barred by limitation as the complaint was filed in the year 2006 and the cause of action arose in the year 1995.

6.     I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. Firstly, it is seen that neither the complainant has paid any bill from September 1995 nor the opposite party took any action for non-payment of the bill till 2013 when the connection was disconnected. It has been argued that once the complaint was filed, action could not have been taken during the pendency of the case, but it is not clear why no action was taken before 2006 for non-payment of electricity dues by the complainant.

7.     Even during the arguments, the learned counsel for the opposite party could not explain the details of the bill of Rs.20,000/-, i.e., on what basis it was issued. This bill is not available on record and both the parties are unable to give even the exact date of this bill and on what basis this bill was issued. Further, the delay in filing the complaint cannot be ascertained as it has to be considered from the date of bill of Rs.20,000/- which had become the cause of action as per the complainant and any uncertainty in this regard is to be considered in favour of the complainant because these proceedings are under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides for better protection for the Consumers.

8.     Clearly, the complainant has paid the bills before installation of meter at the rate of Rs.50/- per month. However, it is clear that notification was issued for converting his village into an urban area on 23.06.1993. Since then, the complainant was liable to pay Rs.100/- p m till the meter was installed. After the meter was installed, the complainant was liable to pay bills as per the meter reading. Learned counsel for the complainant has agreed that the complainant is willing to pay Rs.100/- per month from the date of notification till the installation of the meter and after that as per the meter reading. Respondent does not have any objection to this proposition.

9.     Accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of by directing the opposite party to send the bill as per the above-mentioned proposition (without any penalty) within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt/ service of this order. After receiving the bill, the complainant should make the payment to the opposite party within a period of eight weeks. After receiving the payment, the opposite party will provide new connection subject to normal formalities of the opposite party department within a period of one month from the date of such application. It is also clarified that if the bill is on the basis of meter reading, the rate shall be corresponding to the period of use.