Delay of 30 days in filing the Revision Petition is condoned. Petitioners were the opposite parties before the District Forum. Dispute involved between the parties is that the respondent complainant had taken an electricity connection at his house in the year 1996 from the petitioner. He had paid all the bills raised by the petitioner. Petitioner, vide its letter dated 28.7.2008 informed the respondent that as a result of incorrect feeding of MF as 1/10th, charges for 92,228 units are liable to be recovered from the respondent’s domestic connection from the date of release of connection, i.e., 1996 to June 2008. The total bill raised was to the extent of Rs.3,01,218/-. Respondent was threatened with disconnection in the event if he fails to deposit the said amount. Aggrieved by this, respondent filed complaint before the District Forum. District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 16.4.2009. The bill raised was quashed. Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. State Commission has affirmed the order passed by the District Forum. Fora below have relied upon sub-section (2) of Section 56 of Electricity Act, 2003 to hold that the petitioner could not recover after the period of 2 years from the date when such sum became first due. Since the demand was raised after a lapse of two years, the same could not be sustained. Sub-section (2) of Section 56 reads as under- “(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer, under this section shall be recoverable after the period of two years from the date when such sum became first due unless such sum has been shown continuously as recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.” In the present case, the petitioner was charging from the period 1996 to 28.7.2008, i.e., for a period of 12 years. It is not in dispute that whenever or whatever bill was raised by the petitioner, the respondent had paid the same. Counsel for the petitioner, relying upon two decisions given by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity, contends that the sum payable becomes due from the date the bill is served after computation of the liability and, since in this case the bill was served on 28.7.2008, limitation will start running from that date. We do not find any substance in this contention. It is not a case where the petitioner had not been raising the bills to the respondent. Admittedly, the petitioner had been raising the bills and the respondent had been paying the same. Petitioners are claiming the amount for the short-charging on account of application of wrong formulation. For this, respondent cannot be blamed. It is hard for a middle class or lower middle class person to cope with a huge demand raised after 12 years. Dismissed.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | | 
