Electric energy treated as goods under limitation law, with delayed billing not converting a price claim into mistake-based relief

A claim for unpaid electric energy was treated as a price claim rather than a claim for relief on the ground of mistake. Article 96 of the Limitation Act applies only where the cause of action is founded on mistake itself; a delayed bill or demand does not change the ordinary limitation applicable to the debt. Electric energy was also treated as "goods" because it is movable property bought and sold as a commodity. As a result, the claim fell under the limitation period for goods sold and delivered, and recovery was confined to the period not barred by limitation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the claim for unpaid electric energy was governed by Article 96 of the Limitation Act as a suit for relief on the ground of mistake, or by Article 52 as a suit for the price of goods sold and delivered. (ii) Whether electric energy is "goods" within the meaning of Article 52 of the Limitation Act.

Issue (i): Whether the claim for unpaid electric energy was governed by Article 96 of the Limitation Act as a suit for relief on the ground of mistake, or by Article 52 as a suit for the price of goods sold and delivered.

Analysis: Article 96 applies only where the cause of action is founded on mistake itself, such as recovery of money paid or property handed over by mistake. It does not extend to a claim for price which is otherwise due under contract, where the mistake merely explains the delay in making the demand. A creditor cannot, by pleading mistake in omission to bill or demand within time, escape the ordinary limitation applicable to the debt.

Conclusion: Article 96 did not apply; the claim was governed by the ordinary limitation for a price claim, and recovery was confined to the period not barred by limitation.

Issue (ii): Whether electric energy is "goods" within the meaning of Article 52 of the Limitation Act.

Analysis: Electric energy is bought and sold like a commodity and is capable of transmission from one place to another. It is therefore movable property. The references in the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 to abstraction, consumption, and use of energy in the context of theft support, rather than negate, the view that energy can be treated as movable property. On that basis, electric energy falls within the concept of "goods" for Article 52.

Conclusion: Electric energy is goods within Article 52, and the suit for its price was limited to the three years preceding institution.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded to the extent that the decree was reduced to the amount recoverable within the period of limitation, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decree on that basis.

Ratio Decidendi: A claim for the price of electric energy is governed by the limitation applicable to goods sold and delivered, because electric energy is movable property and the mere fact that billing was delayed by mistake does not convert the claim into one for relief on the ground of mistake.

---