http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: M/S. SWASTIC INDUSTRIES

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/01/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The petitioner  is canvassing  the correctness  of  the decision  of  the  National  Consumers’  Disputes  Redressal Commission, New Delhi, made on Aghast 30, 1966 in Appeal NO. 520/95.      The  admitted   position  is   that   the   respondent- Electricity Board  had issued  a supplementary  bill to  the petitioner on  February 5,  1993 demanding  payment  of  Rs. 3,17,659/-. The  petitioner objected  to  the  bill  by  his letter dated  February 16,  1993, However,  when letter  was issued for  payment of  the said amount, the petitioner paid it under  protest and  filed the  complaint  paid  it  under protest and  filed the  complaint before the State Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission. The Commission by order dated May 24,  1995 allowed  the complaint and held that the claim was barred  by limitation of 3 years. Feeling aggrieved, the Electricity Board  filed an  appeal. The National Commission relying upon  the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court  in M/s.  Bharat Barrel  & Drum Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd.  Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Anr.  (Air  1978  Bom.  369)  has  held  that  there  is  no limitation for  making the  demand by  way of  supplementary bill. Section  24 of  the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 gives power to  the Board  to issue such demand and to discontinue the supply  to a consumer wh neglects to pay the charges. It is contended  by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section  60-A   of  the   Electricity  (supply)   Act,  1948 prescribes  a  limitation  of  3  years  for  the  Board  to institute any suit, after its constitution , for recovery of the arrears.  Thereby the  limitation of 3 years is required to be  observed. The  Board in  negation of  Section 60A  of Supply Act  cannot be  permitted to exercise the power under Section 24 of the Electricity Act, 1910. We find no force in the contention.      Section 60-A  of the  Electricity  (Supply)  Act,  1948 envisages the  enlargement of  the period  of limitation  of certain  circumstances,  i.e.,  intervening  period  of  the constitution of  the Board,  and the  right of  the State to recover the  amount due  to the  State  for  consumption  of electricity delegating  to  power  to  the  Board.  In  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

behalf, clauses (i) and (ii) therein operate as under :      "(i) where  it has been constituted      before  the   commencement  of  the      Electricity (Supply) Amendment Act,      1966 (3 of 1966) within three years      of such commencement; and      (ii) where  if has been constituted      after  such   commencement,  within      three years of its constitution."      This is  an enabling  provision by way of suit. Despite the fact  that Section  24 of  the  Indian  Electricity  Act clearly empowers  the Board to demand and collect any charge from  the   Consumer  and   collect  the  same  towards  the electrical energy  supplied by  the Board  in the  following terms:      "Where any  person neglect  to  pay      any charge  for energy  or any sum,      other than a charge for energy, due      from him  to a  licensee in respect      of the  supply of  energy, to  him,      the licensee may, after, giving not      less than  seven clear days’ notice      in  writing   to  such  person  and      without prejudice  to his  right to      recover such charge of other sum by      suit, cut  off the  supply and  for      that purpose  cut or disconnect any      electric   supply-line   or   other      works, being  the property  of  the      licensee, through  which energy may      be supplied,  and  may  discontinue      the supply  until such charge other      sum,  together  with  any  expenses      incurred by  him in cutting off and      reconnecting the  supply, are paid,      but longer."      It would,  thus, be clear that the right to recover the charges is one part of it and right to discontinue supply of electrical energy  to  the  consumer  who  neglects  to  pay charges is  another part of its. The right to file a suit is a matter  of option  given to  the licensee, the Electricity Board.  Therefore, the mere fact that there is a right given to the  Board to  file the  suit and the limitation has been prescribed to file the suit, it does not take away the right conferred on  the Board  under Section 24 to make demand for payment of  the charges  and on  neglecting to pay the same. They have the power to discontinue the supply or cut-off the supply, as  the case  may be,  when the consumer neglects to pay the  charges. The  intendment appears  to  be  that  the obligation are  actual. The  board would  supply  electrical energy and  the consumer  is under corresponding duty to pay the sum  due  toward  the  electricity  consumed.  Thus  the Electricity  Board,   having  exercised  that  power,  since admittedly the  petitioner had  neglect to  pay the bill for additional  sum,  was  right  in  disconnecting  the  supply without recourse to filling of the suit to recover the same. The National  Commission, therefore,  was right in following the judgment  of the  Bombay High  Court  and  allowing  the appeal setting  aside the  order of  the  State  Commission. Moreover, there  is  no  deficiency  of  service  in  making supplementary demand  for escaped  billing. Therefore may be negligence or collusion by subordinate staff in not properly recording  the   reading  or   allowing  pilferage   to  the consumers. That  would be  deficiency of  service under  the Consumer Protection  Act. We  do  not  find  any  illegality

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

warranting interference.      The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.