AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THESE appeals involve common question of law, therefore, all these appeals are being disposed of by this common order. THESE appeals are directed against orders dated 22.11.2001 as detailed below: (i) Appeal No. 454/2003 is against order in Complaint Case No. 80/90. (ii) Appeal No. 455/2003 is directed against order in Complaint Case No. 81/1999. (iii) Appeal No. 456/2003 is directed against Complaint Case No. 82/1999. (iv) Appeal No. 457/2003 is directed against Complaint Case No. 58/1999. (v) Appeal No. 458/2003 is directed against Complaint Case No. 83/1999.
BY the said orders the demand raised by the opposite party/appellant herein regarding fuel charges on the basis of audit report, has been set aside. The undisputed facts in brief are that the complainants/respondents are consumers of appellant-electricity Board. Electric power was supplied by the appellant-electricity board to the complainants/respondents for their rice mills. The appellant used to issue periodical bills for the electricity consumed by the complainants/respondents from time-to-time, which were duly paid by them. However, the auditors of the appellant noted in their audit report that the fuel charges were not recovered from the respondents in the bills for the period from October, 1991 to March, 1995. The appellants, therefore, demanded payment of the sum towards recovery of fuel charges.
The complainant in the aforementioned cases in their complaints have averred that the recovery of fuel charges was illegal and the same could not be raised by the appellant/electricity board.
THE opposite party/appellant, however, resisted the complaint. According to them recovery of fuel charges based on the audit report could be made by them. The learned District Forum that as the recovery related to the period of more than 3 years prior to the demand, the same was barred by limitation and the amount could not be recovered. Since the amount was deposited by the complainant during pendency of proceedings of the complaints in the District Forum, the said amount was directed to be adjusted from the future bills of the complainants.
LEARNED Counsel for the appellant urged that the District Forum erred in holding that the recovery of fuel charges as demanded by the appellant was illegal and barred by limitation. It was urged that the amounts were recoverable from the complainant/consumers and there was no justification for them to refuse to pay the said amount to the appellant/Electricity Board. Learned Counsel for the appellant Rowever, submitted that the demand towards fuel charges by the appellant/Electricity Board, was time barred and, therefore, it was not legally recoverable. It was, therefore, urged that impugned order was justified. The question that arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the complainants/respondents could be saddled with the fuel charges for the period relating to 1991 to March, 1995 and demand, therefore, could be legally raised by bills, issued in the month of December, 1998.
IT is not in dispute that the recovery of the fuel charges as above relates to the period from 1991 to March, 1995. IT is also not in dispute that demand notices for fuel charges were issued to the complainants in all the cases in the month of December, 1998 that is after lapse of more than 3 years, after payment, as above was due. Obviously such demand was time-barred. In the circumstances, the amount as above was not legally recoverable.
IN the above context the pro-nouncement of the National Commission in Bombay Electric Supply & Transport Undertaking v. Pophale Nursing Home & Anr., III (1993) CPJ 381 (NC), may be referred to. It was held therein that demand having been raised after 9 years by supplementary bill was barred by limitation and the same cannot be recovered. Similarly, the M.P.S.C.D.R.C. in Harish Kumar v. Chief Engineer, M.P.E.B. & Ors., I (1993) CPJ 299=1993 (2) CPR 320, has observed that claim barred by limitation cannot be recovered and the demand, therefore, is illegal. Similar facts and circumstances arise in the present complaints. As the demand for fuel charges was barred by limitation, the same cannot be legally raised and recovered from the complainants/respondents. Accordingly, the impugned orders of the learned District Forum, under challenge in these appeals are justified. They call for no interference. These appeals have no merits. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. Appeals dismissed.