NORTHERN INDIA TILES CORPN vs D.E.S.U.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant has got an electric connection in the factory. The number of the connection is 0147k, 2740624. The opposite party raised bill on the basis of electricity consumed by the complainant as recorded in the meter.

ON 21st October, 1991 the complainant received a Bill from the opposite party for the period from 5th September, 1991 to 3rd October, 1991. The bill for the above period was of Rs. 3,805.80 on account of consumption of 2660 units. It included the meter rent and electricity tax. However, a sum of Rs. 1,67,573.17 had been added to the amount of the bill on the ground that these were the arrears for the period from 7.11.81 to 27.11.89 as that the meter installed in the factory of the complainant was defective. That the complainant filed a Civil Suit regarding the claim of Rs. 39,972.17 which is pending decision before Shri Bhola Dutt, Sub- Judge 1st Class, Delhi. The complainant has challenged the amount of Rs. 1,27,601/- which is alleged to be due as arrears for the period from 7.11.81 to 27.11.89.

The complaint was contested by the respondent. They inter-alia pleaded that the meter of the complainant was slow and, therefore, they were entitled to recover the said amount.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. It is necessary to go into the facts of this case in detail. The matter involves interpretation of Section 26(6) of the Electricity Act, 1910. It is not necessary to dilate upon the matter as a similar matter came up before the Delhi High Court in H.D. Shourie v. Municipal Corporation, 1987, Rajdhani Law Reporter 243. The learned Judge after noticing Section 26(6) observed that the maximum period for which a Bill could be raised in respect of a defective meter was six months and no more. Therefore, even if the meter had been defective for say a period of five years, the revised charges can be for a period not exceeding six months. The above view was followed by Mahinder Narain, J. in Maj. Jorawar Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1991, Rajdhani Law Reporter 312. After taking into consideration the two decisions of the Delhi High Court, we are of the view that the opposite party cannot charge the amount of arrears, if any, for a period of more than six months. The opposite party shall, therefore, be entitled to claim arrears for a period of six months prior to 27.11.89, the date upto which the arrears are claimed. They shall prepare a fresh Bill for the arrears and raise the demand on the complainant in accordance with the law. In case the dispute before the Civil Suit relates to the said period or a part of that period, the opposite party shall not raise any bill regarding the period the dispute of which is pending before the Civil Court. They shall prepare a revised bill regarding the remaining period only. No other point arises in the case.

CONSEQUENTLY, we partly accept the complaint and direct the respondent to prepare a fresh bill for arrears for a period of six months prior to 27.11.89 taking into consideration the observations made above. The amount deposited by the complainant by the order of the Commission be adjusted in the bills to be raised. In view of the partial success of the case we leave the parties to bear their own cost. Complaint partly allowed.