Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
(1) This appeal is filed by the original Opponent against the judgement and award passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, District Raigad in Consumer Complaint No.23/2009 decided on 01.07.2009. While allowing the complaint partly, the District Forum directed M.S.E.D.C. Ltd. to refund amount recovered for the period 29.10.2004 to 13.03.2006 as arrears of bills with interest @8% per annum from 29.09.2008 and specifically directed not to adjust said amount in the future bills and also directed to pay `2,000/- by way of costs. As such, original Opponent Company has filed this appeal.
(2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:
Complainant had filed consumer complaint against the M.S.E.D.C. Ltd., Panvel, District Raigad. Complainant was consumer of M.S.E.D.C. Ltd. bearing Consumer No.030140001836 and was having Electric Meter No.6000023856. According to Complainant Company it was paying the bills regularly, but, on 19.03.2008 the letter was sent by the Opponent Company to the Complainant in which it was mentioned that during the period 29.10.2004 to 13.03.2008 through oversight multiplying factor was inadvertently written as one in place of two and therefore, Company was issuing bills of lesser amount. To recover the arrears of bills issued inadvertently, they had issued fresh bill of `7,53,580/- which was difference bill on account of multiplying factor of 2 in place of 1 and Complainant was directed to deposit the said amount. The Complainant Company pleaded that due to pressure of Opponent Company and due to coercion that they threatened to disconnect the electric supply of their unit, they had immediately deposited an amount of `7,53,580/- under protest and thereafter, they filed consumer complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the M.S.E.D.C. Ltd.
(3) Opponent filed written statement and pleaded that by seeing the meter reading the bills were issued by Opponent Company, but while issuing the bills multiplying factor two should have been mentioned, but it was mentioned as one and when Junior Engineer of M.S.E.D.C. Ltd. visited the factory premises of the Complainant Company on 19.03.2008 the mistake came to his notice and therefore the multiplying factor was rectified and on that basis rectification bill for the amount of `7,53,580/- was issued to the Complainant. The M.S.E.D.C. Ltd. submitted that while giving reply to its notice Complainant’s Advocate had clearly admitted that they were agreeable to the revised bills sent by way of difference bill and they were ready to pay the said bill. Opponent pleaded that Opponent in his office at Panvel deal with 80000 consumers and it was impossible for M.S.E..D.C. Ltd. to check all the bills and therefore, somewhere here and there, there is mistake through inadvertence committed and because of said mistake in the instant case the Complainant was issued lesser bills though his consumption should have been calculated as per multiplying factor two. So it was simply because of inadvertence in billing the Opponent Company was within its right to issue of revised bill for the bills not charged to the Complainant company despite the consumption made by Complainant Company in respect of electric energy supplied by the Opponent Company.
(4) On the basis of affidavits and documents placed on record, the District Forum held that the Complainant Company was required to pay amount of `7,53,580/- under coercion because there was threat of disconnection of electricity, but they had paid bill under protest and therefore, they preferred to file consumer complaint for recovering the amount of bill. The District Forum while allowing the complaint primarily relied upon the provisions of Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and held that while issuing any recovery bill the arrears should not be more than two years preceding issuance of bill. So, the District Forum was of the view that the Opponent Company could recover arrears of bills from 13.03.2008 and two years prior thereof and not for the period 29.10.2004 to 13.03.2008 as was done in the instant case for recovery of arrears of about four years. But, it had instead sent the bills for the period 29.10.2004 to 13.03.2008 and thereby it had sought to recover the bill. The District Forum held that recovery of such a bill was contrary to the provisions of law. Therefore, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed to refund the amount of said bill with interest @ 8% per annum besides imposing cost of `2,000/- on the Opponent. As such Opponent – M.S.E.D.C.Ltd. has filed this appeal.
(5) Notice was given to M/s.H.R. Packaging (Pvt.) Ltd., but, despite notice the H.R. Packaging (Pvt.) Ltd./Respondent did not appear to contest this matter. One D.R. Shelke had appeared in this appeal for Respondent Company. He had filed vakalatnama in this appeal on 20th August, 2010. We heard Advocate Mr.S.S. Jinsiwale, for the Appellant. For today’s date we had specifically directed Appellant to send notice to the Respondent. R.P.A.D. envelope has come back to this Commission with an endorsement ‘unclaimed’. This would mean that Respondent had received today’s date of hearing, but, he remained absent. We heard Mr.Jinsiwale, Advocate for the Appellant extensively.
(6) Advocate Mr.Jinsiwale, submitted that if the consumer is not charged properly then for lesser bills issued fresh bills can be issued and there is no question of limitation involved in such case if the consumer was earlier charged lesser amount than he should have been charged looking to the consumption in his premises or factory. He relied upon the judgement of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s.Tototex Polyster & Anr. V/s.Administrator, Administration of Dadra & Nagar Haveli (U.T.) Electricity Department, Silvassa & Ors., reported in 2009(5) ALL MR 579. In this case Hon’ble Bombay High Court clearly laid down that in case of consumer is billed on account of clerical mistake where multiplication factor had changed from 500 to 1000, but due to oversight department had issued bill with multiplier factor being 500 instead of 1000, the period of limitation cannot be raised by the Consumer. Because it is simple case of lesser billing and no plea of limitation can be taken as shield against such recovery.
(7) In our case Respondent Company should have been charged with the multiplier factor 2 but it was issued bill inadvertently presuming that it was having multiplier 1 and this was going on for more than 4/5. In the year 2008 the Junior Engineer of the Appellant Company visited the factory premises and come to know that the Company was being charged under presumption that it was having a multiplier factor 1 though it was having factory and multiplication factor 2 and bills should have been double the bills issued and paid by the Respondent Company herein. Accordingly correct bill to cover up the difference for the last four years were issued which was ultimately paid by the Respondent Company but under protest and simply looking to the fact that bill has been paid by Respondent under protest the District Forum agreeing with the Complainant’s contention held that in view of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 bill more than past two years cannot be recovered and hence, it allowed the complaint. But, we are finding that as per ratio laid down by Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in the case of under billing, due to inadvertence, the electricity bill can be issued or raised to recover the difference from the consumer and there would not be bar of limitation in such case. This ruling is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Relying on the Bombay High Court ruling the appellant – M.S.E.D.C. Ltd. has rightly issued bill of `7,53,580/-. The District Forum clearly erred in law in applying period of limitation provided under section 56(2) of the Electricity Act 2003 which in the circumstances, in view of Hon’ble High Court ruling should not have been applied. In these circumstances, we are of the view that by allowing this appeal, we will have to quash and set aside the order passed by the District Forum. Hence, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) Impugned judgement and award passed by the District Forum in consumer Complaint No.23/2009 dated 01/07/2009 is quashed and set aside.
(iii) Complaint No.23/2009 stands dismissed.
(iv) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
(v) Amount deposited by the Appellant Company be refunded to it by the Registrar of this Commission with accrued interest thereon.
(vi) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced on 15th February, 2011.
