You are on page 1of 4

BEFORE THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI


REVISION PETITION NO.3953 OF 2017

IN THE MATTER OF:


MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION
COMPANY LTD. …..PETITIONER
VERSUS

M/S SANTOSH PRINTERS ……RESPONDENT

WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

1. That the Respondent is company engaged in the business of


screen printing and is carrying on the business for the purpose of
livelihood and self-employment.

2. That the Respondent/complainant is a bonafide consumer of


electricity supplied by the Petitioner/Opposite party, having
Consumer No. 001840854066 and Meter No.6000020861. The
Respondent had applied for electric connection in the year 2002
and the opposite Party (erstwhile “Maharashtra state Electricity
Board”) has sanctioned electric connection to the complainant
bearing aforesaid consumer and meter numbers.

3. That the Respondent has paid all the bills right from the
beginning till 02.02.2008. However, to the utter shock and surprise
of the complainant, he received additional bill dated 30.01.2008
from the Appellants demanding an amount of Rs.6, 27, 977/- as
additional recovery of bills for the period May,2002 to December,
2007.

4. That the Respondents submits that the petitioner has admitted


that “due to human error and administrative mistake of the
billing/accounting section, the instant bill has been raised”, after
several years, for which respondents in no way is responsible
and/or liable to be punished for no wrong committed by the
respondent.

5. That the Petitioner have failed to accept the error committed by


the concerned section of the petitioner and the petitioner is wholly
responsible for the loss caused on account of wrong billing and the
concerned workmen of the petitioner’s department should be
punished for the grave error. The Respondents has no role to play
in the functioning of the petitioner.

6. That the Respondents have not committed any offence and


cannot be directed to pay additional bills for the wrong committed
by the concerned department of the petitioners. The Petitioners
have admitted that error in the billing has occurred due to their
own negligence and, the respondents should not be held
responsible.

7. It is pertinent here to mention that the provisions of Electricity


Act does not allow to raise the bills beyond the period of two years.
In the instant case, the petitioner has raised the bill after six years
which is clear violation of the S.56(2) of the Electricity Act,2003.
The relevant provision of law has been reproduced below for kind
perusal as follows:

Disconnection of supply in default of payment.-


(1) Where any person neglects to pay any charge for
electricity or any sum other than a charge for electricity due
from him to a licensee or the generating company in respect
of supply, transmission or distribution or wheeling of
electricity to him, the licensee or the generating company
may, after giving not less than fifteen clear days' notice in
writing, to such person and without prejudice to his rights
to recover such charge or other sum by suit, cut off the
supply of electricity and for that purpose cut or disconnect
any electric supply line or other works being the property of
such licensee or the generating company through which
electricity may have been supplied, transmitted, distributed
or wheeled and may discontinue the supply until such
charge or other sum, together with any expenses incurred
by him in cutting off and reconnecting the supply, are paid,
but no longer:

PROVIDED that the supply of electricity shall not be cut off


if such person deposits, under protest,-

(a) an amount equal to the sum claimed from him, or

(b) the electricity charges due from him for each month
calculated on the basis of average charge for electricity paid
by him during the preceding six months, whichever is less,
pending disposal of any dispute between him and the
licensee.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for


the time being in force, no sum due from any consumer,
under this section shall be recoverable after the period of
two years from the date when such sum became first due
unless such sum has been shown continuously as
recoverable as arrear of charges for electricity supplied and
the licensee shall not cut off the supply of the electricity.

8. That the Respondent submits that the respondents has already


deposited a sum of Rs.2,00,000 in compliance of the order of the
passed by the ld. District Consumer Forum.

9. That the Judgments Cited in the Revision Petition has no


relevance in the present context as the error in billing caused due to
the inefficient and inattentive workmen of the concerned
department of the petitioner, and if the plea of the Petitioner is
allowed, it would cause irreparable loss to the respondent and set a
bad precedent causing grave injustice to the Respondent.

10. That the Respondents should not be allowed to suffer for the
wrongs committed by the accounts department of the petitioner,
inadvertence and administrative mistake in the billing/accounting
section of the petitioners instead of applying multiplying factor 2,
right from the inception when the billing started from May,2002
multiplying factor 1 was applied.

PRAYER:

In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, It is


most respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Commission be pleased
to:

a) Reject this Revision Petition and confirm the


judgment and order dated 06.03.2010 passed by the
Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission, Maharashtra Mumbai in First Appeal No.
262 of 2009 and further order dated 04.03.2009
passed by the District consumer Forum, Thane,
Maharashtra in Complaint No.101 of 2008.

b) Pass Such further and orders as this Hon’ble


Commission may deem fit and proper in the interest of
Justice
Respondent

Through
Advocate
New Delhi
Dated:

You might also like