Delhi

StateCommission

CC/558/2016

HARISH MENON - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

SIVASHANKAR PANICKER

12 Jul 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                              Date of Arguments: 12.07.2016

     Date of Decision: 13.07.2016

 

Complaint Case No.558/16

In the matter of:

Mr. Harish Menon

S/o. Shri P.K. Kutty,

R/o. Flat No.40-D,

SFS DDA Flats,

Pocket-C, Sector-G,

Kondli, Gharoli,Delhi-110096.                  ………….Complainant

 

Versus

 

BSES Yamuna Power Limited,

Registered Office at:-

Shakti Kitan Building,

Karkardooma,

New Delhi-110092.                                              ........Opposite Party

 

CORAM

 

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?  Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes        

 

JUDGMENT

 

          The complainant has claimed Rs.20,00,000/- as liquidated damages with interest @18%, Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony, direction to the authorities to enquire into mal functioning of meter readings, direct the  authorities to take  appropriate action against Erring Officer  as agreed in order dated 6.7.2011 before Public Grievance Cell, Rs.10,00,000 as liquidated damages with interest @18% per annum for cause of action which arose on 19.6.2015. The said cause of action relates to bill dated 19.6.2015 showing incorrect consumption as pleaded in para 20 of the complaint at page 10. The complainant has also claimed another Rs.10,00,000/- towards mental agony for the same cause of action, Rs.20,00,000/- for unfair and restricted trade practice  in order to pray fraud on the complainant.

          Strangely enough the complainant has prayed for liberty to claim additional damages as per report of respective authorities. Under what provisions of law, is not known. The complainant has claimed Rs.25,00,000/- as cost of litigation. In sum and substances the case of the complaint is that he was consumer of OP vide K number 1241 Q-2070031 at his residence. OP issued on average       bill dated 8.7.2010 for Rs.9350/-, he sent email raising objection. The meter was inspected and it was found that last bill for 21093 unit could not be justified with current load of law. The complainant wanted 15 days consumption report which was not provided. He was forced to pay said bill under the threat of disconnection. He approached DERC for redressal of his grievances and last complaint to  Public Grievance Cell vide grievance no.130 BCB dated 26.11.2010 was heard on 6.7.2011. CEO was directed to hold the enquiry and OP was directed to tender apology . The said order was not complied with.

          Mr. Brijesh Kumar, Vice President and Head Customer Care, Reliance ADA was briefed about bill dated 19.6.2015 and that consumption was incorrect. On 31.8.2015 meter testing was conducted at the premises in the presence of the complainant by meter testing unit of OP who informed the complainant that meter was working perfectly.

          It has been  held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in UP Board Corporation Ltd. V/s. Anish Ahmed AIR (2013) Supreme Court 2766 that billing dispute can be challenged under Section 135  Electricity Act and the case is not maintainable in Consumer Court. Same was reiterated by National Commission in Uttar Haryana Bijali Vitran Nigam V/s. Om Prakash IV (2013) CPJ-571.

          Still further complaint for cause of action which arose on 8.7.2010 is barred by limitation as the same has been filed on 24.5.16. The limitation to  file complaint is two years from the date of cause of action under section 24 A of the Act.

          Rahel of directing OP to enquire into mal functioning of meter, to take appropriate action against erring officer as agreed before Public Grievance Cell is beyond Consumer Act.

          For the forgoing reasons the complaint is dismissed in limine.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

 

 (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

nk