Consumer forum quashes Rs 1.23 lakh electricity bill sent to govt official after 15 years

Popli said in his complaint that to his shock, he received a bill for the cycle from May 28, 2019 of Rs 1,18,306 (including Rs 1,06,432 as sundry charges) for the period from February 25 to April 25, 2019 in which the old reading shown as 42,174 and new reading as 44,354 and as such consumption of 2,180 units were shown.

He added that the demand of sundry charges after a lapse of 15 years is illegal and arbitrary. Upon enquiry, he was informed that the defaulting amount of Rs 48,681 were pending since 2004 and annual surcharge was being added without any intimation to him. Popli alleged to not have received any notice regarding the pending electricity bill, adding that no objection was raised regarding the issuance of a new connection, as would have been the case in case of pending dues.

Popli’s counsel, Advocate Manoj Vashith, contended that as per the allotment rules and regulations of the UT Administration, the vacation report of the vacated government house is not issued to the employee until a no dues certificate from the electricity and water departments is issued.

The Executive Engineer, Electricity Division and SDO, Chandigarh Administration in reply submitted that though Popli applied for issuance of an NOC and permanent disconnection of the electricity supply on October 22, 2003, he continued to occupy the said house till September 21, 2004 and only vacated the premises after authorities initiated the proceedings under the Public Premises Act. They said that he received the said bill of Rs 54,809 and acknowledged the liability by making part payment of Rs 6,000 on October 13, 2004.

The commission after hearing the matter and going by the records, held, “In our opinion that the demand raised by the OP in respect of any electricity due from a consumer after a period of more than two years is not legal and justified. Section 56(2) of the Electricity Act, 2003 clearly bar the demand and recovery of any such dues from a consumer after a period of two years from the date when such sum became due.” The demand was thus quashed and the electricity division was directed to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs 15,000 to the complainant as compensation as well as litigation expenses.