9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of limitation period under Section 60-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. 2. Authority of Electricity Board to issue supplementary bills and discontinue supply. 3. Consumer's obligation to pay electricity charges and consequences of non-payment. 4. Deficiency of service in making supplementary demands and consumer protection. Analysis: The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the limitation period under Section 60-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. The Court examined the provision which enables the enlargement of the limitation period in certain circumstances, such as the constitution of the Board and the State's right to recover amounts due for electricity consumption. The Court highlighted that this provision is an enabling provision for filing suits and does not restrict the Electricity Board's power to demand and collect charges from consumers. The Court emphasized that the right to file a suit is optional for the Board, and it does not diminish the Board's authority to demand payment and discontinue supply in case of non-payment. Regarding the authority of the Electricity Board to issue supplementary bills and discontinue supply, the Court analyzed Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910. The Court noted that the Board has the power to demand and collect charges from consumers and to discontinue supply if the charges are not paid. The Court clarified that the right to file a suit is separate from the power to demand payment and disconnect supply. Therefore, the Board was within its rights to disconnect supply when the consumer failed to pay the additional amount demanded through the supplementary bill. The Court also examined the consumer's obligation to pay electricity charges and the consequences of non-payment. It emphasized that consumers have a duty to pay for the electricity consumed, and the Board has the authority to disconnect supply if charges are neglected. The Court highlighted that the obligation to pay is actual, and the Board's actions in disconnecting supply for non-payment were justified under the law. Furthermore, the Court considered the issue of deficiency of service in making supplementary demands and consumer protection. It noted that making supplementary demands for escaped billing does not constitute a deficiency of service unless there is negligence or collusion by the staff. Such negligence or collusion would fall under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The Court found no illegality in the actions of the Electricity Board and upheld the decision of the National Commission to allow the appeal and set aside the State Commission's order. The Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition, concluding that there was no basis for interference in the case.
|
