M/S. SWASTIC INDUSTRIESversusMAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

A                          M/S. SWASTIC INDUSTRIES
                                           v.
              MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

                                 JANUARY 24, 1997

B               (K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
                                                                                         ....
          Indian Electricity Act, 1910/Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948:

          S. 24/ S. 60-A-Electricity supply-Demand by Electricity Board-Con-
C sumer neglecting to pay-Held : The mere fact that a right is given to the
    Electricity Board to file suit and limitation prescribed therefore, does not take
    away the 1ight conferred on it to make demand for payment of charges-Con-
    sumer neglecting to pay the same-Board has power to discontinue the supply
    or cut-off the supply.

D        M/s. Bharat Barrel & Dmm Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The
    Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Anr., AIR (1978) Born. 369
    approved.

         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
    No. 765 of 1997.
E
          From the Judgment and Order dated 30.8.96 of the National Con-
    sumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in F.A. No. 520 of
    1995.                                                                                    c
          Shankar Divate, Naresh Kaushik and Mrs. Lalitha Kaushik for the •
F Petitioner.
          A.S. Bhasme for the Respondent.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

         The petitioner is canvassing the correctness of the decision of the
G
    National Consumers' Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, made
    on August 30, 1996 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 demand-
H   ing payment of Rs. 3,17,659. The petitioner objected to the bill by his letter
                                        532
                         MIS SWASTIC INDUSTRIES v. M.S.E.B.                     533
       dated February 16, 1993. However, when letter was issued for payment of A
       the said amount, the petitioner paid it under protest and filed the com-
       plaint 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
                                                                                    B
       the judgment of a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Mis. Bharat
       Barrel & Dmm Manufactwing Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. The Municipal Corporation of
       Greater Bombay & Anr., AIR (1978) Born. 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 who neglects to pay C
       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 D
       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 in certain circumstance, i.e., inter-
       vening period of the constitution of the Board, and the right of the State      E
       to recover the amounts due to the State for consumption of electricity
       delegating the power to the Board. In that behalf, clauses (i) and (ii)
       therein operate as under :

               "(i) where it has been constituted before the commencement of           F
               the Electricity (Supply) Amendment Act, 1966 (8 of 1966) within
               three years· of such commencement; and

               (ii) where it has been constituted after such commencement, within
               three years of its constitution."
                                                                                       G
             This is an enabling provision to recover the amounts due 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 trrms :                                                        H
    534                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [1997] 1 S.C.R.
A            "Where any per3on neglects 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 light to recover such charge or other
             sum by suit, cut off the supply and for that purpose cut or discon-
B            nect any electric supply-line or other work, being the property of
             the licensee, through which energy may be supplied, and may
             discontinue the supply until such charge· or other sum, together
             with any expenses incurred by him in cutting off and reconnecting
             the supply, are paid, but no longer."
c
          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 it. The right to
   file a suit is a matter of option given to the licensee, the Electricity Board.
D 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
E appears to be that the obligation are mutual. The Board supply electrical
 1 energy and the consumer is under corresponding duty to pay the sum due
   towards the electricity consumed. Thus the Electricity Board, having exer-
   cised that power, since admittedly the petitioner had neglected to pay the
   bill for additional sum, was right in disconnecting the supply without
   recourse to filing of the suit to recover the same. The National Commission,       \.
F 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. There may be negligence or collusion by
    subordinate staff in not properly recording the reading or allowing pil-
   ferage to the consumers. That would be deficiency of service under the
G Consumer Protection Act. We do not find any illegality warranting inter-
    ference.

            The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed

H    G.N.                                                      Petition dismissed.