2011(3) CPR 274
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
S.K. Kulshrestha, President; Mrs. Pramila S. Kumar and Mrs. Neerja Singh, Members
Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Co. Ltd. —Appellant
versus
Munnalal Jain —Respondent
First Appeal No. 554 of 2010
Decided on 25.3.2010
AIR 2007 Bombay 52 Referred to.
S.K. Kulshrestha, President—The appellant (original opposite party) has filed this appeal against the order dated 19.1.2010 of the District Forum, Morena passed in case No. 228/2009. The complainant has been granted domestic connection of electricity. A bill of Rs. 55,165 was given to the complainant. It is not disputed that this bill also covered the arrears of the preceding period of two years. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 provides 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.”
2. From a bare perusal of the said provision it is clear that if the amount is recoverable for a period exceeding two years preceding on the date when the sum became first due, it cannot be recovered 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. The period shall be confined to the period of two years. It is this order that has been passed by the District Forum.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the order has been passed on misreading of the evidence. The bills were regularly sent to the connection holder, therefore, the provision of Section 56(2) was not attracted. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on Awadesh S. Pandey v. Tata Power Co. Ltd.1 We find that the contention of the learned Counsel has no merit. It is true that the bills were not reaching the subscriber and the amount had mounted to Rs. 55,165. The provision of Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 clearly prohibits raising of the bills for a period beyond two years. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not uphold the direction of the District Forum to award compensation of Rs. 1,000 and Rs. 500 as costs of the proceedings.
4. With the above modification, this appeal is disposed of.
Appeal disposed of with modification
in award.
*********
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.