Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10.2 The time period of dispute for levy of Parallel Operation Charge between the parties is from July, 2006 to September, 2008. The bill which consisted of parallel operation charges and was required to be issued by the appellant no.1 was on monthly basis, but appellant no.1 had issued the supplementary bill of Rs. 37,97,971/- towards Parallel Operation Charge for the first time on 16.06.2008 to the respondent no.2 Shaifali Rolls, who disputed the said bill stating that he had not availed the facility of parallel operation of the CPP. Moreover, the matter of determination of parallel operation charge was sub-judice and respondent no.2 had not received any bill for the earlier 23 months and requested the appellants to disconnect the parallel operation of the CPP of respondent no.2 Shaifali Rolls. Thereafter, no action was taken by the appellants for recovery of the amount shown in the supplementary bill dated 16.06.2008, till July, 2011 when a disconnection notice was served by the appellant no.1 on 26.07.2011 to the respondent no.2 Shaifali Rolls on the grounds of non-payment of Parallel Operation charges. It is also a fact that the respondent no.2 had paid Rs.

36,28,324/- towards parallel operation charge on 02.05.2012 against the disconnection notice issued by the appellant no.1.

10.3. The rival contentions have been made on the issue of limitation during hearing before us. According to the respondent no.2 Shaifaili Rolls, the parallel operation charges claimed by the appellants are barred by limitation as the dues claimed by the appellants are beyond the period of three years. The rival contention of the appellants is that there is no vested right in law or equity for the respondent no.2 to claim that he is not liable to pay the Parallel Operation charge and there cannot be a defence on the part of respondent no.2 to avoid the payment of Parallel Operation charge. The delay in issuance of the bills for parallel operation charge as argued by the appellants' learned counsel was due to a communication error between PGVCL- appellant no.1 and GETCO- appellant no.2.

SUMMARY OF OUR FINDINGS

15. The learned State Commission has rightly held that the claim of the appellants for the parallel operation charge for the period prior to 26.07.2011 is after more than three years and by virtue of Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a limitation of three years has been prescribed for claiming compensation for any breach of contract and any such claim or compensation beyond a period of three years is barred by limitation.

16. The learned State Commission has also rightly noted that the appellants were required to recover the parallel operation charge on monthly basis for the month from July, 2006 to September, 2008 but they had for the first time demanded the parallel operation charge on 16.06.2008 which was for the period of July, 2006 to May, 2008 which was disputed by the respondent no.2 Shaifali Rolls.

17. The learned State Commission has also rightly observed that the appellant no.1 demanded the parallel Operation Charge for an amount of Rs. 85,55,404.61/- through the disconnection notice dated 26.07.2011 i.e. after three years, one month and nine days which was beyond the period of limitation of three years as specified in Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for the period from July, 2006 to June 2008. The claim of parallel operation charge by the appellants for the months of July to September, 2008 since falls within the period of three years, is not barred by the period of limitation.