MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SWASTIK INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This First Appeal No. 520 of 1995 is against the Order of the Maharashtra State Commission in complaint No. 317/93 dated 24.5.1995. The Maharashtra State Electricity Board is the appellant and M/s. Swastik Industries, Pune, is the respondent before us. The summary of the facts is as follows :

(2.) On an inspection of electric meter of the respondent made by the appellant in January, 1985 it was found that K.W. and K.V.A.M.D. were faulty and K.W.H unit recording was also faulty. It was, therefore, decided by the appellant that the assessment of units consumed should be made on "average basis" for the period August, 1984 to December, 1984. However, till 5.2.1983 the appellant did not take any action on the inspection report of January, 1985. It was on 5.2.1993 that the appellant informed the respondent about this low recording of electricity consumption on his meter and enclosed a supplementary bill for Rs. 3,17,659/- for the period August, 1984 to December, 1984 indicating details of the average units required to be charged, what was actually charged and the difference thereof. The respondent, according to the appellant, requested for the payment of the said supplementary bill by installments which was allowed and they accordingly paid the amount due from them in 6 installments of Rs. 52,906/-each. Thereafter, the respondent filed a complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, stating that they were made to make payment on the threat of disconnection of power supply to their factory, which, they, for obvious reasons, could ill-afford. The payment made by them was, in a way, under coercion. They also stated that recovery of a due after a long period of 9 years is time barred and that the Electricity Board cannot take recourse to Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and that too, in such a case as there was no negligence on the part of the respondent to pay the due charges in time. The Maharashtra State Commission after having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent came to the conclusion that the appellant by giving a notice under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act and by threatening the customer cannot make its claim alive after such a long period and, therefore, the recovery made by the appellant from the respondents was illegal. They accordingly directed the Maharashtra State Electricity Board to pay back the amount of Rs. 3,17,659/- to the respondent within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the order with interest @ 18% per annum alongwith the costs of Rs. 5,000/-. It is against this order that the appellants are before us.

(3.) The Maharashtra State Commission has noted that the appellants had brought to their notice a judgment of the Maharashtra High Court in regard to the interpretation of Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act to assert that an old and time barred claim, under the Limitation Act, could be made alive by taking recourse to this section. However after noting that the judgment reported in AIR 1978 Bom. 369 was brought to their notice by the Counsel for the appellant, the State Commission did not discuss the implications of that judgment and its relevance in the present case.