DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016

Case No.242/13

Smt. Seema

W/o Late Sh. D. S. Chauhan

R/o C-67/2, Ground Floor, KH No.975,

JVTS Garden, Chhatarpur Extension,

New Delhi-110074                                                       ….Complainant

Versus

BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd.

Through its Business Manager

District/Division Saket,

New Delhi-110017                                                      ….Opposite Party

                                                  Date of Institution      :         25.04.13      Date of Order          :         16.04.19   

Coram:

Sh. A.S. Yadav, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

ORDER

Member - Kiran Kaushal

1. Briefly put case of the complainant is that the complainant, Smt. Seema applied for two domestic electricity connections at her newly built house for two floors, for load of 5 K.W. each. Vide demand notes dated 13.03.09 and 23.02.09, the complainant was provided electricity connections by BSES hereinafter referred to as OP on 27.03.09. Both the electricity meters were installed adjacent to each other. The first bill for two months was received by the complainant in June 2009. It is alleged that the complainant was not issued any bill for CA No.150673036 till March 2013. But to her horror whopping bill of Rs.2,22,450/- was issued to her with due date as 11.03.13.  The said bill was full of errors as the bill did not have any CRN number allotted to the complainant. The bill showed a sanction load as 1.00 KW whereas the corresponding demand note was issued for 5 KW load.   It is stated that the said meter seemed to be defective which is not showing any logical billing details.
   1. It is next averred that the said bill is issued for almost four years while the meter reader of the OP was regularly visiting the place of the complainant to get the reading. Not a single bill was raised regarding this meter whereas she was getting regular bill for her other connection and was regularly paying the same under the impression that the said bill is a consolidated bill for both the connections.
   2. It is stated that the complainant wrote letters to the Business Manager of the OP dated 18.03.13 and 29.03.13 thereby requesting him to issue a consumption chart and other proof for the reading showing in the bill in question as the billing seemed to be inflated than her actual consumption.  The complainant did not receive any reply from the OP. Hence, aggrieved she approached the forum with the prayer to direct the OP to withdraw the above said bill.

2. OP resisted the complaint inter-alia on the ground that the present complaint pertains to billing dispute on the domestic connection. It is submitted that during the routine check-up the official of OP visited the house of the complainant on 11.02.13 and found that two electricity meters were existing at the site bearing meter No. 24041519 & 24041156. It is submitted that the meter bearing No.24041519 was found being billed regularly. However, no billing record for raising regular bill was found in respect to other meter. The meter bearing No.24041156 was showing reading of 46351 units.  The consumer was asked to show if she had any record regarding the said meter and also regarding the payment, if she had made against the said meter. But she showed her inability in producing the records/ relevant documents and payment receipt against the said meter.  Having no other option a new N case (Unbilled Meter Case) was generated against the consumer and bills for further consumed units was generated after giving all the benefits.  The said bill was delivered to the consumer for payment but she failed to pay the same.   

2.1    It is submitted that probably due to some inadvertent reasons the documents of meter bearing No.24041156 could not be uploaded and updated. Further, the complainant has failed to produce the proof of payment, if any, made by her till date against the said connection. It is next submitted that the complainant is trying to mislead the Forum by stating that she was under the impression that the complainant was paying bill for both the connections and avoiding her responsibility. It is, therefore, prayed that the complaint be dismissed with costs.

3. Complainant has filed replication to written statement of OP.
4. Complainant has filed by evidence way of affidavit wherein facts of the complaint are reiterated. Evidence of DGM, Sh. M.D. Jaya Prakash has been filed on behalf OP.
5. No written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
6. Oral arguments on behalf of the parties are heard and material placed on record is perused very carefully.
7. Admittedly, the two electricity meters were installed on 27.03.09 with the CA No. 102287055 & 150673036.
8. The main issue raised in the present complaint is whether the bill raised by the OP after four years is payable by the complainant or not?  There is no denying the fact that the complainant did consume electricity on the meter in dispute. Though the complainant has the defence of limitation open but after having consumed the electricity the complainant is liable to pay the electricity charges. It is not the case of the complainant that she did not consume the electricity therefore she cannot escape the statutory liability to pay for what is used/consumed.  Counsel for complainant has placed reliance on an article published in a E-newspaper titled as ‘ The Hitavada’. On the strength of this article, it is argued that power bill arrears beyond two years cannot be recovered.  A study of the article  reflects that it relies upon a full bench judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court.  However, the citation of the judgment on its title is not indicated in the said article.  Relevant portion relied upon by the complainant is  herewith reproduced below:

“The High Court after examining all technical arguments and statutory provisions noted that section 56 deals with disconnection of supply in default of payment, when  a consumer neglects to pay any charge for electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of  electricity to him. However, as far as the consumer is concerned no sum due from him under section 56 shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrears of charges for electricity supplied. If this condition is satisfied, then alone the licensee shall cutoff the supply of electricity and not otherwise, the High Court clarified and found no conflict in two judgments.”

This Forum is of the opinion that issue discussed in the article is not similar to the question before this Forum. The issue in the Article is about the scope of section 56 of Electricity Act which deals with the disconnection of supply in case of default of payment.  In the present case OP does not propose or threaten disconnection of electricity supply. Therefore, this article holds no relevance to the present case. 

Per contra OP has relied upon catena of judgments which have been referred to and relied upon by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Devraj Vs. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd., W.P. (C) No.5360/16, decided on 22.02.11. Para 10 of the judgment is material, which reads as under:-

10.  “The  question as to when the electricity charges become first due  is no longer res integra. The Single Judge of this Court in H. D. Shourie Vs. Municipal Copn. of Delhi MANU/DE/0356/1987: 32 (1987) DLT 73 held that the electricity charges become due and the limitation for recovery thereof commences only when the bill therefore has been raised. The Division Bench in appeal reported as MCD (DESU) v. H.D. Shourie 53 ( 1994) DLT 1 reiterated that liability to pay accrues when liability is quantified and bill is raised. The counsel for the Respondent has also drawn attention to Swastic Industries v. Maharashtra State Electricity Board MANU/SC/0254/1997 : (1997) 9 SCC 465 upholding the order of the National Consumer’s Disputes Redressal Commission holding that even where the electricity  distribution company had woken up after nine years to make the claim, the electricity  dues had to be paid….”  

In cited judgment it has been held that failure of licensee to raise bill of electricity consumed would not make the demand time barred. In one of the judgments referred upon, bill raised after nine years was also held payable.

9. Further it is hard to believe that the complainant having installed two meters with two different meter numbers was having the impression that a consolidated bill would be charged for both the meters.
10. It is noticed from the copy of the bill in dispute which we mark as Mark-A and Mark-B for the sake of identification that no penalty or late payment surcharge has been levied up on the complainant. The bill amount payable i.e. Rs.2,22,450/- is raised according to the units consumed/meter reading taken at that point of time.
11. However, for a common man Rs.2,22,450/- is a hefty amount of electricity bill to be paid in one go. Therefore, the OP is directed to take payment in installments over a period of one year.  If the dues are not so cleared, the complainant shall become liable for Late Payment Surcharge besides other remedies of OP.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 16.04.19.