National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Vinod Kumar vs Chairman, P.S.P.C. & 2 Ors. on 24 September, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 255 OF 2015 (Against the Order dated 01/10/2014 in Appeal No. 966/2012 of the State Commission Punjab) WITH IA/590/2015 1. VINOD KUMAR S/O SH.GHAMANDI RAM, SOLE PROP OF GOMTI DEVI COLDSTORAGE MUKTSAR ROAD, MALOUT TEHSIL MALOUT, DISTRICT : SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB PUNJAB ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. CHAIRMAN, P.S.P.C. & 2 ORS. THE MALL, PATIALA PUNJAB 2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.S.P.C. OPP TRUCK UNION, GT ROAD, MALOUT PUNJAB 3. SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, (OPERATION) CITY P.S.P.C OPP TRUCK UNION , G.T ROAD, MALOUT, PUNJAB ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER For the Petitioner : MR. SANJEEV KUMAR VARMA For the Respondent : Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Advocate Ms. Bonita Singh, Advocate Mr. Arjun Drona, Advocate Dated : 24 Sep 2015 ORDER This revision petition is directed against the order of the State Commission dated 01.10.2014, whereby the said Commission directed the respondents to raise a demand for a period of two years from the date of last inspection, on the complainant after serving him a notice on account of genuine calculation mistakes.
2. When this petition came up for hearing on 19.05.2015, considering the provisions contained in Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act, we issued limited notice to the respondents as to why the demand should not be restricted to the consumption of electricity for the period commencing 29.07.2009 i.e. two years prior to the date of the demand letter dated 28.07.20011. Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act reads as under:-
"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."
It is quite evident from a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision that no amount due from a consumer can be recovered after expiry of two years from the date on which the said amount first became due unless the amount in question has been shown regularly as arrears in the electricity bills.
3. Admittedly, in the present case, the amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner was not shown as arrears in the bills issued to the petitioner prior to 28.07.2011, when the demand letter was issued. Therefore, in view of the mandate of Section 56 (2) of Electricity Act, electricity charges for the period prior to 29.07.2009 cannot be recovered. The revision petition is, therefore disposed of with a direction to the respondent to issue a revised bill to the petitioner/complainant for the electricity consumed between 29.07.2009 to 28.07.2011 within six weeks from today. The petitioner/complainant shall make payment in terms of the aforesaid revised demand within four weeks of receiving the same from the respondent. If there are any statutory regulations entitling the respondent to charge interest on the amount payable by the petitioner/complainant only then it shall be entitled to include interest in the revised demand letter to be issued to the petitioner/complainant in terms of this order. If the petitioner is aggrieved from the quantum of the demand raised by the respondent, he can have such remedy as may be open to him in law.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER