The duty to pay electricity dues against the property lies on the new owner/occupant, and they cannot disown the liability of paying the electricity dues relating to the property purchased by them.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition has been filed by BSES Yamuna Power Limited challenging the order dated March 23, 2012 passed by the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (‘Forum’, in short), whereby the Forum has decided the Complaint No. 06/01/2011 filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein challenging the bills raised by the petitioner herein in the month of February, 2009 for Rs.6,35,330/- and Rs.10,80,110/- respectively with regard to two electricity connections in property bearing no. R-551, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi purchased by respondent nos. 1 and 2 vide sale deed dated June 5, 2008.

2. The case of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein before the Forum was that they purchased the property from M/s. On Dot Courier and Cargo Ltd., respondent no.3 herein vide sale deed dated June 5, 2008. They received two electricity bills on February 6, 2009 from the petitioner for the aforesaid amounts in respect of two electricity connections bearing CRN Nos. 1140100253 and 1140100381 on account of revision for the period 09.05.2005 and 21.01.2009 & 25.11.2005 and 21.01.2009 respectively. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 challenged the aforesaid bills on the ground that they were not aware of the existence of these two electricity meters when they purchased the property from the respondent no.3 and the said bills have been raised by the petitioner after a lapse of more than three years. It was their case that the officials of the petitioner company were regularly visiting their premises during the period June, 2008 till February, 2009 to take reading against the other three electricity connections existing in their premises, but they never pointed out to them about the existence of the two other electricity meters in respect of which the bills have been raised in February, 2009.

3. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 have challenged the validity of the two bills on the ground that the petitioner is prohibited by Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 as the said bills have been raised after a lapse of more than 3 years. It was also stated by them, when the said premises was purchased from respondent no.3, it was represented to them that there were only three electricity meters working/functioning in the said premises and before purchasing the said premises they verified that there were no dues/arrears against those three electricity meters. However, on enquiry from the respondent no.3 it was revealed to them these two meters in respect of which bills have been issued by the petitioner, got disconnected sometime in the year 2005.

4. The case of the petitioner before the Forum was, that the two electricity meters have been existing in the said premises since long back and the old meters of these two connections were replaced with new electronic meters bearing nos. 17014933 and 17014931 on May 9, 2005 and November 25, 2005 respectively under the mass replacement plan of meters at initial reading 01. However, due to some technical error in their system, the computer started showing the status of these connections as disconnected and consequently no bills were raised against these two connections after installation of new electronic meters in 2005, even though the electricity connection was alive and continued to be consumed by the consumers. Finally, they came to know about the existence of these meters in January, 2009 and pursuant to taking the actual meter reading on January 21, 2009, they have issued the above-stated bills in respect of these two connections in February, 2009 on the basis of actual consumption of electricity down loaded from meter data. Hence the same are correct. The petitioner has also contested the plea of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 that the petitioner is barred under Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 to raise a demand after three years. The petitioner had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sisodia Marbles and Granites Pvt. Ltd. v. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited in Civil Appeal No. 202 and 20