Per Mrs.S.P. Lale, Hon’ble Member
This appeal has been filed by the org. complainant/appellant herein against the dismissal order dated 05/03/2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai.
The complainant is the consumer of opponent since 1976 and opponent had installed a meter bearing No.L771486 at the complainant’s residence. According to the complainant on 14/08/1999 opponent removed the meter No.L771486 since it was burnt and installed a new meter No.L830711. Opponent informed the complainant that since the old meter was burnt, the complainant will be charged electricity on the basis of previous consumption from the date of meter is not registering properly till the date of replacement of the new meter. It is alleged by the complainant that opponent demanded huge amount of `86,174/- for the period from 17/05/1996 to 14/08/1999. The complainant vide letter dated 28/04/2001 pointed out to the opponent that the meter reading was showing excessive consumption of 2-3 times of the average previous consumption. However, opponent has sent disconnection notice dated 13/07/2002 for payment of dues and therefore, under protest, the complainant paid `11,000/- to the opponent. It is further alleged by the complainant that the opponent did not raise demand for `86,174/- on the basis of previous consumption and arbitrarily issued excessive bill to the complainant and therefore, complainant filed consumer complaint in the District Consumer Forum for deficiency in service.
Opponent filed written version and denied the allegations made by the complainant. It pleaded that the meter of the complainant was burnt and stopped working and therefore, meter was replaced on 14/08/1999. Opponent further pleaded that said meter was burnt and said meter was not recording actual consumption and therefore, the bill was prepared for period 17/05/1996 to 14/08/1999 to cover this shortfall based on the consumption of new meter No.L830711 for 745 units per month on the base period from 14/08/1999 to 17/05/2000. Accordingly the opponent issued amended bill for `86,174/- dated 19/04/2001 and therefore, according to the opponent, opponent has not charged excessively and finally prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
We heard Mr.D’Mello, Advocate for the appellant and Mr.Ketkar, Advocate for the respondent. Perused the documents.
The payment raised by the opponent/respondent herein based on the consumption actually recorded in a subsequent period with new meter. In addition to it, respondent also took into consideration the total load factor i.e. connected load of the unit per month from the date of meter is not registering reading properly till the date of replacement of meter is justified. The calculation is based on a scientific approach adopted by the respondent and, thus, cannot be held arbitrary. Thus, no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent could be alleged. However, as per Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003, respondent could not recover arrears of any consumers after period of two years. Section 56(2) is reproduced as under :-
“56(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.”
Therefore, respondent can recover the amount in arrears from the appellant only for period from 15/07/1997 to 01/05/1998 and 01/05/1998 to 14/08/1999. Under the circumstances, we partly allow the appeal and pass the following the order :-
-: ORDER :-
1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. Respondent is hereby directed to issue a bill to the appellant for the period from 15/07/1997 to 01/05/1998 and 01/05/1998 to 14/08/1999.
3. No order as to costs.
4. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced
Dated 26th April 2011.
