Electricity arrears and escaped billing: limitation on suit does not bar supplementary demand or supply disconnection.

A statutory limitation on filing a suit for recovery of electricity arrears does not extinguish the supplier's independent power to demand unpaid charges and disconnect supply under the electricity law. The Court treated the right to sue for recovery and the right to enforce payment through disconnection as distinct remedies, so the supplementary bill was upheld despite the consumer's limitation objection. It also held that a supplementary demand for escaped billing, being linked to electricity actually consumed and unpaid, does not by itself amount to deficiency of service under consumer law. On the facts noted, allegations of negligence or collusion by staff were not enough to establish deficiency.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Electricity Board could raise and enforce a supplementary bill for arrears despite the limitation provision relied upon by the consumer; (ii) Whether making a supplementary demand for escaped billing amounted to deficiency of service under consumer law.

Issue (i): Whether the Electricity Board could raise and enforce a supplementary bill for arrears despite the limitation provision relied upon by the consumer.

Analysis: Section 60-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 was treated as an enabling provision governing the institution of suits within a specified period after the Board's constitution. It did not take away the independent power under Section 24 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to demand payment for energy supplied and, on default, disconnect supply. The right to recover charges by suit and the right to discontinue supply were treated as distinct remedies, and the existence of a limitation period for suit did not bar the Board from raising a demand for unpaid charges.

Conclusion: The supplementary bill and the consequential action by the Board were upheld, and the contention based on limitation failed.

Issue (ii): Whether making a supplementary demand for escaped billing amounted to deficiency of service under consumer law.

Analysis: The supplementary demand was linked to non-payment of charges for electricity actually supplied. The Court treated escaped billing as a matter arising from the consumer's obligation to pay for energy consumed, and not as a deficiency in service merely because a further demand was issued. Any negligence or collusion by subordinate staff in recording readings or preventing pilferage was not treated as establishing deficiency in service on the facts found.

Conclusion: The allegation of deficiency of service was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The consumer's challenge to the supplementary bill failed, and the Board's demand and disconnection action were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory limitation on filing a suit for recovery of electricity arrears does not curtail the electricity supplier's independent power to demand unpaid charges and disconnect supply under the governing electricity law, and a supplementary demand for escaped billing does not, by itself, constitute deficiency of service.

---