Delhi

East Delhi

CC/374/2012

G.D MANGLIK - Complainant(s)

Versus

BSES - Opp.Party(s)

22 Aug 2012

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES RERESDSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELH

CC NO.374/12:

In the Matter of:

Shri G.D. Manglik,

D-84, Shakarpur,

Delhi - 110 092                                                                                                                     

Complainant

Vs

BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (BYPL)

Shakti Kiran Building,

Karkardooma,

Delhi - 110092

Opposite Party

     

                                                                              Date of Admission-06.06.2012                                                                               Date of Order         -17.06.2015

 O R D E R

 

Sh.  Subhash Gupta, Member:

The present complaint has been filed by the complainant who is a consumer of BSES (BYPL) bearing CA No.100930902 for the correction of Bill No.123420 dated 23.06.2005 for Rs.4,920.58 which was deposited by him with the BSES (BYPL). It is alleged in the complaint that the BSES has converted all previous average bills into actual bill and did not care to compare the heavy consumption shown by the faulty meter with his previous consumption. The complainant approached DERC as well as PGC in this regard. However, when his complaint was closed by the PGC vide Order dated 07.03.2012 he has filed the present complaint on 21.05.2012 before this Forum.

Notice of the complaint was served on the opposite party, hereinafter referred to as the OP, and it has filed its reply. The OP has taken a preliminary objection on the point of limitation as the complainant is seeking the relief of the bill raised and paid in the year 2005 after a lapse of 7 years. On merits, OP has stated that earlier bill of Rs.6,182.10 of July, 2005 was raised which was revised to Rs.4,920.56 and was duly paid without protest by the complainant. It has also been stated by the OP that the above said bill was revised by showing proper slab benefit and no LPSC had been charged during that period and the accuracy of the meter was found within permissible limit of 1.85%. The meter testing charges of Rs.50/- have also been refunded in the bill.

The complainant has not led any evidence despite having provided an opportunity.   The OP has filed its affidavit reiterating the contents of the reply.

We have gone through the complaint, reply and other documentary evidence filed on record. The complainant has challenged the bill dated 23/06/2005 vide his complaint before us made on 21/05/2012.  We find that the present case is hopelessly barred by limitation as provided under Section 24A of the The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and, therefore, the complaint is dismissed.

Copy of the order be served on the parties as per rules.

 

 

(Subhash Gupta)                           (Poonam  Malhotra)                                (N.A.Zaidi)

         Member                                               Member                                         President