Raising Demand Undisputed Consumption of Electricity Not Deficiency in Service NCDRC (Consumer Case)

SBI, a consumer of electricity from Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, was issued a notice demanding Rs. 5,81,893 for arrears from past periods, which had been repeatedly reflected in its bills.

SBI argued that under Section 56(2) of the Indian Electricity Act, arrears could only be recovered within two years of billing, claiming this was a deficiency in service and sought compensation. The District Commission ruled in favor of SBI, awarding Rs. 3,000 as compensation and Rs. 3,000 as litigation costs. Aggrieved, the electricity company appealed to the State Commission, which allowed the appeal.

SBI then approached the National Commission with a revision petition. The National Commission observed that the burden of providing deficiency in service lies with the complainant. SBI argued that the electricity bill was barred by limitation under Section 56 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003, but the electricity company countered that the bill was based on a later demand due to a defective meter. The Commission clarified that raising an additional demand for undisputed consumption does not constitute deficiency in service.

Citing Supreme Court rulings, it emphasized that limitation begins when a demand is raised, not due to the negligence by the company. Since the electricity company raised the bill on 29.08.2019, the limitation period started then, and the bill was for recovering a pending assessment, not a deficiency in service. The National Commission dismissed the revision petition, upholding the State Commission’s decision.

Source: – Live Law
By: – Rajat Ranjan