This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Punjab State Electricity Board against the order dated 29.10.2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (in short ‘the State Commission’) in FA No.1467 of 2010. 2. Brief facts of the case as given in the order of the State Commission are that D.AV. Centenary Senior Public School, Jalalabad (West) through its Principal respondent/complainant filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the petitioner/opposite party making the averments that an electricity connection bearing account No.CR-12-733 was installed in the premises of the respondent-school having sanctioned load of 92.72 KWs. The respondent was paying the electricity bills regularly. A memo bearing No.332 dated 20.2.2006 was issued by the petitioner to the respondent demanding Rs.1,39,866/- on the basis of the checking dated15.2.2006. The respondent has pleaded that the said demand was wrong and illegal. Even the respondent-school moved an application before the Dispute Settlement Committee of the petitioner by depositing 1/3rd of the disputed amount. It was pleaded that the committee has also wrongly and illegally rejected the claim of the respondent and the respondent deposited the remaining amount under protest. Later, again the petitioner has issued a Memo No.2725 dated 15.12.2009 on the basis of checking dated 11.12.2009 vide which a sum of Rs.4,16,099/- has been claimed. The respondent pleaded that this demand of the petitioner is wrong and illegal. The respondent deposited the said amount per force and under protest to avoid disconnection which shows the deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner. The respondent filed the complaint seeking direction to the petitioner to withdraw the Memo No.332 dated 20.2.2006 for Rs.1,39,866/- and Memo No.2725 dated 15.12.2009 for Rs.4,16099/- and to pay interest @12% per annum from the date of its deposit and further direction to the petitioner to pay Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation and Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses. Upon notice the petitioner replied by taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the respondent is false, frivolous and vexatious. Complicated question of law and evidence have been involved in the present complaint, as such the Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint and the respondent has not come to this Hon’ble forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. On merits, it was submitted that the sanctioned load of the connection in question is 110.099 KWs. The amount in question has not been deposited by the respondent under protest. It was submitted that the case of the respondent was decided by the Dispute Settlement Committee on 27.7.2006. The respondent-school did not prefer any appeal against the order of the Dispute Settlement Committee but deposited the amount in question. Now the respondent cannot be allowed to challenge that demand. Even the said amount has been deposited by the respondent four years back and as such complaint in respect of checking relating to the year 2006 is not maintainable at this stage. It was further pleaded that the Senior XEN Enforcement wing of the petitioner checked the connection of the respondent on 11.12.2009 and the CTPT unit of the respondent was also checked and it was found that the CT PT Unit was of 200/5 Capacity whereas the capacity of the meter was 100/5 and as such the multiplying factor has been at “2” whereas inadvertently, the factor ‘1’ was applied. The memo of checking was also prepared at the spot which was also signed by the official of the respondent. It was further submitted that the account of the respondent was overhauled w.e.f. 14.8.2003 because of the fact that the amount recoverable from the respondent as electricity charges was in-advertently calculated less whereas the respondent was required to pay the electricity charges by applying factor ‘2’. A sum of Rs.4,16,099/- was found due from the respondent due to the above said miscalculation. No penalty has been imposed upon the respondent rather the amount due has been charged. Other allegations were denied by the petitioner and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed. 3. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ferozepur, (in short ‘the District Forum’) decided the complaint No.96 of 2010 and opposite party was directed to overhaul the account of the complainant for last 2 years. Opposite party filed appeal before the State Commission, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2013. 4. Hence the present revision petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused record. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the State Commission has upheld the order of the District Forum for the overhaul of the account of the complainant only for 2 years whereas the wrong bills were being paid by the complainant since 2003. It is clear from the enquiry that the complainant has paid the bills which were sent with a multiplying factor of only 1 whereas the bills should have been paid with a multiplying factor of 2. Both the fora below have limited the period of overall for only 2 years on the basis of clause 35.2 of the Regulation Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters of the Electricity Regulatory Commission of the State. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Forums below erred in not considering the Regulation No.73.8 of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters, Regulation 2007 which is relevant herein and reproduced as under:- “73.8- The cases involving incorrect connection defective CTs/PTs, genuine calculation mistake etc. are not governed under the abovementioned instructions but under the provision of Condition No.23 of the Condition of Supply which reads as under:- “Whereas the accuracy of meter is not involved and it is a case of incorrect connection or defective CTs and PTs, genuine calculations mistakes etc. charges will be adjusted in favour of Board/consumer as the case may be, for the period the mistake/defect continued.” 6. On the basis of the above provision it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to recover the additional charges from the complainant since 2003 and the orders of the fora below are bad in law and need to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent complainant stated that both the fora below have given concurrent finding and the scope under the revision petition is quite limited and particularly facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission in revision petition. 8. It was further stated by the learned counsel for the respondent complainant that the Electricity Regulatory Commission of Punjab has made regulations for the benefit of the consumers and clause 35.2 clearly states that no demand can be raised for the bills prior to 2 years unless the demand is continued from before 2 years. It is clear in the present case that the demand has been assessed only in the year 2009 and therefore, there was no demand in this regard which was being shown against the complainant and was pending for payment for the period beyond two years from the date of raising the bill in the year 2009. The Electricity Board is bound by these regulations and the reliance of both the fora below on clause 35.2 of these regulations is totally justified. The issue of clause 73.8 of these Regulations has been raised before this Commission, however the same is not applicable in the present case as this is not a case of defective CT/PT, rather this is a case of negligence on the part of the petitioner themselves that they did not prepare the bill correctly and such cases are clearly not covered under this clause. 9. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record. 10. First of all it is seen that both the fora below have given concurrent finding on the basis of clause 35.2 of the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and Related Matters) Regulations 2007 that arrears electricity dues cannot be collected for period prior to two years from the date of issue of the bill if the arrears are not reflected in the bill from an earlier date. In such a situation, the scope under the revision petition is quite limited as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, wherein the following has been observed:- “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 that 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 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 finding of two fora.” 11. Moreover, it is the case of the petitioner that the bill was revised as the earlier bills where sent treating the multiplying factor as 1 whereas the multiplying factor should have been 2 and therefore, the bills were corrected since 2003. The revised bills reflect the actual consumption of electricity and are required to be paid by the respondent complainant. In a way this is an admission on the part of the petitioner that they were sending wrong bills and did not bother to check with the metre whether the multiplying factor should have been 1 or 2. The complainant has been paying the bills regularly as received by the complainant and he has also paid the additional demand of Rs.1,39,866/- when an additional demand of the same amount was raised by the electricity board. Even at that time this mistake by the Electricity Board was not brought either before the complainant or before the complaints committee which finally decided the matter and the complainant had to pay Rs.1,39,866/-. Clause 35.2 reads as under:- “Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer under this Regulation 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.” 12. From the above clause, it is clear that the electricity dues for the period prior to two years from the date of revised bill cannot be asked to be paid by the consumer and the fora below have rightly interpreted this clause and have accordingly passed the right orders. In the revision petition the petitioner has raised the plea of clause 73.8 of the same Regulations and has claimed that under the Regulation the corrected bills for any period can be realised. 13. A simple reading of clause 73.8 clearly shows that it is for the defective CT/PT however, in the present case there is no case of defective CT/PT rather it is a case of negligence on the part of the metre reading personnel or the bill preparing Section of the Electricity Board. Obviously, this negligence does not seem to be covered under clause 73.8. Hence this clause is of no help to the petitioner as the present case cannot be covered under this clause. 14. On the basis of above discussion, I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 29.10.2013 of the State Commission which calls for any interference from this Commission. Consequently, the revision petition No.1679 of 2014 is dismissed. | 
