JUDGMENT : Asper Smt . Neerja Singh, Member : - 1.This appeal is by the complainant, whose complaint against the respondent MPSEBwas dismissed vide an order dated 17-1-07 ,passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Morena . 2.The appellant, who is a resident of Village Rampur ,has an agricultural connection since 1993. He states that he paid the billsregularly till 1997. In 1997, the electricity wires of one Puttulal were stolen and as the appellant's connection was on the same line, the electricsupply was also disrupted. He complained about the theft to the respondentMPSEB, but nothing was done. In 2001, he was asked to deposit Rs . 17,000/- for installing new wires and resuming electricsupply. Though he paid the amount, the electric connection was not restored.Suddenly in August, 2006, a bill of Rs . 1 ,34,851 /-was raised by the respondent Department. 3.The respondents deny that any theft of electric wires took place and state thatthe appellant received electricity till September, 2004. At that time his dueswere Rs . 47,290/-. As he did not make the payment,his electric connection was disconnected. They further state that theappellant's connection has no correlation with the electricity line of Puttulal . They further avert that the appellant paid Rs . 17,000/- in 2001, which shows that he continued to useelectricity. 4.The District Forum dismissed the complaint stating that the appellant had notpaid his dues and the respondent MPSEB were right in issuing the bill. TheForum further held that the complaint was also time barred. 5.We have heard the arguments of the learned Counsels of the parties and perusedthe documents filed on record. 6.A letter given to the MPSEB by the appellant, dated 16-11- 2001 , makes it evident that the appellant did not have electricsupply. In this letter, the appellant states thatthough he was asked to deposit Rs . 17,000/- forresumption of electric supply, for which he has also purchased the wires, noelectric supply was provided. This letter has the receipt of the respondent andhas not been denied by them. 7.What is also interesting is that a case was filed before the District Forum, Morena , in 2005, a year prior to the instant case, by one Puttulal wherein the complainant had stated that the lineto his well and to the well of Ramprakash (theappellant before us) was stolen. The Forum had quashed the electricity bill of Puttulal . 7.What is also interesting is that a case was filed before the District Forum, Morena , in 2005, a year prior to the instant case, by one Puttulal wherein the complainant had stated that the lineto his well and to the well of Ramprakash (theappellant before us) was stolen. The Forum had quashed the electricity bill of Puttulal . The MPSEB did not file any appeal against theorder thereby accepting the fact that Puttulal's linehad been stolen. At that time there was no reason for Puttulal to make the false averment that along with his wires, the line of Ramprakash had also been stolen. Obviously, the theft ofthe wires disrupted the power supply of both Puttulal and Ramprakash . 8.Along with the appeal the appellant has filed a map of the electricconnections, under Order 41 Rule 27, which being relevant to the case, aretaken on record. This map certified by the Sarpanch of the village shows that the appellant's connection was on the same line as Puttulal . Though MPSEB has also filed a map to show thatthe two connections were on different lines, the map filed by them has no sealnor is it supported by any affidavit. To get to the bottom of this discrepancy,the Executive Engineer, MPSEB was directed by this Commission on 29-12-08 , to remain present andexplain the factual position. However, as he did not appear before us, we areconstrained to draw adverse inference. We, therefore, see no substance in therespondent's argument that the connection of Puttulal ,whose wires were stolen, has no connection to the appellant's electric supply. 9.Even otherwise, the MPSEB cannot recover dues for more than two years from thedate the sum became first due, as per Section 56 (2) of the Electricity Act,2003. Obviously, regular billing was not done or the connection would have beendisconnected in 2001 itself. The billing details are apparently prepared lateras there is a difference between the amount of Rs . 47,290/-demanded in October, 2004 by letter, and thebilling details, which show the amount due as Rs .87,290/- in October, 2004. 10.In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The order of the Forum below isset aside. There being no electric supply from 1997, the respondent MPSEB isnot entitled to recover any amount from the appellant, and the bill of Rs . 1,34,851/- for the month of August 2006 is quashed. Noorder as to costs.