Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – 2(1)(g) – Deficiency in service – When not – Additional demand raised by respondent no.3 alleging short billing in view of wrong multiply factor (MF) applied in the bills raised for particular period – Challenged by appellant inter alia pleading bar u/s.56, 2003 Act – Complaint dismissed by National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission – On appeal, held: Before going into the question of bar u/s.56(2), the consumer forum is obliged to find out at the threshold whether there was any deficiency in service – Raising of an additional demand in the form of short assessment notice, on the ground that the multiply factor was wrongly mentioned in the bills raised during particular period, does not tantamount to deficiency in service – If a licensee discovers in the course of audit or otherwise that a consumer has been short billed, it is entitled to raise a demand – So long as the consumer does not dispute the correctness of the claim made by the licensee that there was short assessment, it is not open to the consumer to claim that there was any deficiency – Appellant never disputed the correctness of the respondents’ claim that the MF to be applied was 10, but it was wrongly applied as 5 – National Commission correctly pointed out that it is a case of “escaped assessment” and not “deficiency in service” – Respondents not guilty of any deficiency in service – Complaint rightly dismissed – Electricity Act, 2003 – s.56(2). Electricity Act, 2003 – s.56(2) – Bar under – Held: Bar u/ s.56(2) operates on two distinct rights of the licensee, (i) the right to recover (ii) the right to disconnect – Bar with reference to the enforcement of the right to disconnect, is an exception to the law of limitation – Limitation Act, 1963. Electricity Act, 2003 – s.56(1) – Impact of, on s.56(2) – Discussed.