Amar Chand Vs. DHBVNL       87/2015

Present:        None for the DH.

Smt. Bidika, CA alongwith counsel

Sh. BS Indora, Advocate for JDs.

                     Smt. Bidika, CA made a statement that in compliance of order dt.07.01.2015 the amount of DH for the period from 12.03.2011 to 16.08.2011 on the basis of six month average reading of new meter has already been overhauled and a sum of Rs.7280 /- including litigation charges of Rs.2200/- has been adjusted in the bill for the month of January 2017 of complainant/DH and now nothing is due against JDs.

                     We have gone through the impugned order dt. 07.01.2015 and on the basis of calculation,  bill for the month of January 2017 issue to DH but as per JDs, DH  is not depositing the current charges of the electricity consumed by him.

         Keeping in view the statement made by JDs and that DH is not appearing for the last many dates, suggest that JDs has already complied the impugned order. Thus, the execution petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Member                 Member                 President

                                                                        DCDRC, Bhiwani

                                                                        07.09.2022