Delhi

North East

CC/327/2013

URMILA GAUTAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.S.E.S. POWER LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

09 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No 327/2013

 

In the matter of:

 

 

Urmila Gautam

B-10/257, Brij Puri, Delhi-110094

 

 

 

         Complainant

 

 

Versus

 

 

The BSES – Yamuna Power  Ltd.

Main Wazirabad Road, Gokul Puri,

Near Police Station, Delhi-110094

 

 

 

 

        Opposite Party

 

Order

 

           

DATE OF INSTITUTION:

23.12.2013

 

DATE OF DECISION      :

09.02.2017

Nishat Ahmad Alvi, Member

 

  1. As per complaint, complainant a consumer of OP vide CA No. 141433416 received a bill dated 19.09.2013 for an amount of Rs. 4,500/-. This bill included an amount of Rs. 3060/- as arrear of bill dated 23.07.2013, which she had already paid. Vide her letter dated 28.09.2013 complaint to this effect was made to the OP. But OP neither revised the bill nor adjusted this amount. Rather vide message dated 30.09.2013 OP asked for payment of Rs. 4,500/-, as claimed in the bill of Sep. 2013. Complainant has prayed for further directions to OP to revise the bill dated 19.09.2013 by  adjusting  the amount of Rs. 3060/-. Complainant had also prayed compensation and damages for inconvenience and discomfort alongwith litigation cost.
  2. After notice, OP by filing its reply has denied the allegation stating that though amount of Rs. 3,060/- against bill dated 23.07.2013 was paid but only on 19.09.2013, much after the due date. OP has also stated that 19.9.2013 was the date on which the bill under dispute of Rs. 4,500/- was issued. Therefore, it included the demand of aforesaid arrears. The revised bill asked for, in the complaint, has already been issued by OP after adjusting the amount of Rs. 3,060/-. Revised Bill has already been handed over to consumer with full satisfaction. There being no deficiency in service and harassment on the part of OP. OP has prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
  3. Complainant by filing its rejoinder has reiterated contents of complaint. Both the parties filed their respective affidavit of evidence alongwith relevant documents.
  4. Heard & perused the complaint.
  5. Complainant has filed two bill dated 19.09.2013 & 23.07.2013 alongwith copy of application, with Registered Post Receipt, sent to OP being Annexure A-1, A-2 & A-3 respectively. Annexure, A-1 confirms the facts of the complaint that OP had issued bill of Rs. 4,500/- by not adjusting Rs. 3,060/- while Annexure-A-2 shows that bill dated 23.07.2013 for Rs. 3,060/- has already been paid on 19.09.2013. It is also mentioned on the bill that last date of bill for payment was 8.8.2013. Annexure-A3 is a complaint, dated 28.09.2013, alleging that amount of Rs. 3,060/- has not been adjusted, requiring to revise the bill within 3 days after deducting the paid amount of Rs. 3,060/-
  6. OP alongwith its reply has filed amended  bill dated 19.09.2013. This bill was issued after deducting Rs. 3,060/- the disputed amount which has also been paid by complainant on 12.11.2013.
  7. On the basis of above findings it is a admitted case that complainant did not pay, Rs. 3060/- the amount of bill dated 23.07.2013, within the granted time i.e. 8.8.2013, the last date of payment but after more than a month i.e. 19.09.2013, on which date another bill dated 19.09.2013 was issued. Thus, as the next bill was issued on the same date entry of paid bill might not come on record and OP has rightly shown that amount as arrear. Revised Bill placed on record supports OP’s contention that this discrepancy has been rectified and amount of Rs. 3060/- has already been adjusted.
  8. Thus, we find no deficiency and / or harassment on the part of OP. OP has acted bonafide. Hence, no cause of action arising against the OP and in favour of complainant with respect to this amount.
  9. In view of the aforesaid discussion we are of the opinion that complainant have failed to prove her case against OP. Hence, complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
  10. File be consigned to record room.
  11. Announced on: - 09-02-2017

 

(N.K.Sharma)

President

 

(Nishat Ahmad Alvi)

Member

      

                                                 

                                                             

                                                                                   

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.