Short billing recovery is not deficiency in service, and Section 56(2) does not bar later additional demand.

A short assessment notice issued to correct short billing is treated as a lawful recovery step and, by itself, does not amount to deficiency in service, so a consumer complaint cannot rest on that ground alone. The commentary further states that Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 does not bar recovery of an additional demand merely because the billing error was detected later; the limitation framework is linked to when the sum first becomes due and not to the later discovery of the mistake. On that analysis, the consumer dispute fails unless a maintainable deficiency claim is first established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a short assessment notice issued on discovery of short billing amounts to deficiency in service so as to sustain a consumer complaint. (ii) Whether Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 bars recovery of additional demand raised after detection of a billing mistake.

Issue (i): Whether a short assessment notice issued on discovery of short billing amounts to deficiency in service so as to sustain a consumer complaint.

Analysis: The complaint was founded on the premise that the electricity distributor had wrongly applied the multiply factor and later raised a short assessment demand. The consumer did not dispute the correctness of the short billing itself. The raising of an additional demand after audit or discovery of a billing mistake is a lawful recovery step and, by itself, does not establish fault, imperfection, or inadequacy in the service. A consumer forum must first find a real deficiency in service before examining recovery issues under the electricity law.

Conclusion: The short assessment notice did not amount to deficiency in service, and the consumer complaint was not maintainable on that basis.

Issue (ii): Whether Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 bars recovery of additional demand raised after detection of a billing mistake.

Analysis: Section 56(1) deals with a consumer's neglect to pay electricity charges after a demand is raised, while Section 56(2) places a time bar on sums due under that section and also bars disconnection after the stipulated period. The limitation machinery starts when a sum becomes first due, which in a billing context is linked to the raising of the bill. In a case of short billing discovered later, the distributor's claim for the additional amount is not defeated merely because the error is later detected. The earlier decision relied on by the appellant was treated as distinguishable on its facts and was not taken to control a case where the very foundation of deficiency was absent.

Conclusion: Section 56(2) did not assist the consumer, and the additional demand was not barred on the facts of the case.

Final Conclusion: The consumer complaint failed for want of deficiency in service, and the order rejecting it was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A demand raised to correct short billing is not, by itself, deficiency in service, and the statutory bar in Section 56(2) cannot be invoked where the consumer dispute does not first disclose a maintainable deficiency claim.

---