JUDGMENT :

1. The Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “the electricity company”) has by way of this petition challenged the order dated 16.07.2021 passed by the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum in complaint No. 172 of 2020-2021.

2. Facts in brief indicate as under:

2.1 The respondent Indus Towers Limited is a consumer of Energy. It obtained a LTMD tariff electricity connection for 15 kw being connection No. 13918 / 01337/ 5 on 28.05.2007. The respondent No.1, thereafter approached the electricity company for increasing the sanctioned load of 235 kw.

2.2 In October 2019, the internal audit of the petitioner company for the period from April 2017 to March 2018 revealed certain discrepancies with respect to billing of the respondent No.1 for the period of August 2012 to January 2015. According to the auditors, while the contracted and the sanctioned load for the period of August 2012 to January 2015 was 15 kw, the billing was wrongly done by considering the sanctioned load at 8 kw. Further, the energy charge applicable per unit was wrongly considered at Rs.4.35 instead of Rs.4.55. Accordingly, the Chikhli Division of the Electricity Company on 14.07.2020, issued a supplementary bill for an amount of Rs.83,436.88 ps/- to the respondent No.1 for the period from August 2012 to January 2015. The respondent No.1 on 17.03.2021 paid payment of 50% under protest and thereafter challenged the Supplementary Bill before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Surat, by filing the aforesaid complaint.

2.3 By the order under challenge, the Forum observed that the officers of the Electricity Company were negligent in performance of their duty and did not check the wrong billing. Considering Clause 6.84 of the Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code & Related Matters) Regulation which provides that no sum due from any consumer shall be recovered 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 arrears of charges of electricity, the Forum came to the conclusion that the Company is barred by raising a Supplementary Bill for a period of two years.

3. Mr.Maulik Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the Electricity Company would submit that the order of the Consumer Grivance Redressal Forum to the extent that it prohibits the distribution company from claiming any sum from a consumer older than two years in case of mistake or bonafide error is bad in law.

3.1 Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate, would submit that in reading clause 6.84 of the Regulations, the Forum erroneously interpreted the terms “First Due”. Mr.Nanavati, learned advocate, in support of his submissions would rely on two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Engineer (D1), Ajmer Vidyt Vitran Nigam Limited and another vs. Rahamatullah Khan alias Rahamjulla., reported in (2020) 4 SCC 650. He would also rely on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Cottex vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd & Ors., reported in 2021 SCC online SC 870, to submit that in a situation similar to the present case, in the case of Rahamatullah Khan (supra), where the consumers were billed by the licensee for the period of July 2009 to September 2011, the Supreme Court interpreted the term “First Due” as appearing in sub-section 2 of sec.56 of the Electricity Act, 2003. to mean that electricity charges would become “First Due” only after the bill is issued to the consumer. Even though the liability to pay may arise on the consumption of electricity. He would submit that the Supreme Court would interpret on the issue of whether the limitation of two years would be applicable to supplementary bill by holding that the limitation would only be restricted to the light of the licencee to disconnect electricity supply due to non payment of dues.

3.2 Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate, would also rely on a decision in the case of Prem