B.S.E.S. RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED vs BALBIR SINGH

THIS is a case of double billing of electricity under K. No. 000-129226 and 813-12922223. The bills were being sent to the respondent on the wrong connection for which he approached the Bijli Lok Adalat and the appellant did not pay any heed to the requests of the respondent. The Bijli Lok Adalat directed the respondent to deposit Rs. 10,000/- and in spite of depositing the same the appellant has not credited the bills and has instead been threatening to disconnect the connection. Vide impugned order dated 21.1.2003 the appellant has been directed to rectify the bill of October, 2002 after giving due adjustments to the payments already made by the respondent and issue rectified bill to the respondent as per misuse tariff.

THROUGH this appeal the appellant has assailed the finding of the District Forum that the raising of bill for the arrears of last 68 months by the appellant in the bill of February, 2001 and the same arrears which were reflected in the bill of October, 2002 were barred by time as these were the demand for a period of more than 36 months i.e., 3 years and the respondent has been paying bills to the appellant in spite of the fact that the bills were raised by the appellant on wrong K. Nos. The perusal of the record as well as the bills against which the payment was made by the respondent shows that the amount of Rs. 25,180/- shown in the bill of February, 2001 as outstanding dues and similarly the amount of Rs. 42,091-29 p. shown as outstanding arrears of 68 months in the bill of October, 2002 are result of double billing on the aforesaid connections and, therefore, the Bijli Adalat had rightly directed the respondent to deposit Rs. 10,000/- towards the arrears. Observations of the District Forum that the appellant is not entitled to recover the arrears for more than 3 years is not correct as per the rules the electricity consumed at any time and any dues towards the Government authorities is not barred by limitation. However, in view of our observation that the arrears shown in the bill of February, 2001 and October, 2002 were on account of the double billing on the connection in question, we do not find any merit in the appeal though for different reasons and dismiss the same with the directions to rectify the bill of October, 2002 without showing outstanding arrears of 68 months and issue a revised bill after giving due adjustment to the payments already made by the respondent. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to record room. Appeal dismissed.