Summary
The Court upheld dismissal of a consumer complaint against a supplementary electricity demand correcting an admitted multiplying-factor error. Raising the corrected short-assessment demand did not itself establish deficiency in service. Section 56(2)’s bar concerns recovery and disconnection, but limitation did not run against an amount never previously billed: neglect to pay could arise only after demand. The earlier Rahamatullah Khan decision was distinguished. The consumer was granted eight weeks to pay the balance after its interim deposit.
Issues
- Whether correcting undisputed short billing by supplementary demand constituted deficiency in service.
- Whether Section 56(2) barred recovery or disconnection for charges omitted through the licensee’s billing mistake.
- How the earlier Rahamatullah Khan decision applied to this demand.
Provisions considered
- Section 2(1)(g), Consumer Protection Act, 1986The consumer forum first had to find deficiency in service. A corrected demand for an admitted short assessment, without more, did not satisfy that requirement. (¶¶ 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Section 56(1) and (2), Electricity Act, 2003The two-year restriction addresses both recovery and disconnection, subject to the statutory arrears exception. Neglect to pay presupposes demand, so the bar did not apply to the previously unbilled short-assessment amount in this case. (¶¶ 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 23, 24, 25, 26)
Held
- The consumer did not dispute that the multiplying factor should have been ten rather than five. Its complaint that it could no longer recover the difference from its customers did not turn correction of the licensee’s billing error into deficiency in service. The forum had to address that threshold before testing recovery under Section 56. (¶¶ 9, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Section 56(2) restricts both recovery and disconnection, rather than disconnection alone. But Section 56(1) concerns the consumer’s neglect to pay, which arises only after demand. For an amount not previously billed, limitation had not begun to run merely because the electricity had earlier been consumed. The statutory bar therefore did not assist this consumer. (¶¶ 10, 12, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25, 26)
- Rahamatullah Khan was distinguished by its facts and by the questions considered there. It did not resolve the threshold deficiency issue raised here, and its relief concerning disconnection did not require allowing this complaint. The Court did not overrule that decision. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26)
- Dismissal of the complaint was affirmed. Since half the demand had been paid under the interim order, the consumer was allowed eight weeks to pay the balance. The conditional refund provision of the interim order did not become a final refund award. (¶¶ 7, 27)
Result
Appeal dismissed; consumer given eight weeks to pay the balance demand after credit for its interim payments. No costs.