Haryana

StateCommission

A/933/2015

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

GEETA BHATIA - Opp.Party(s)

N.K.BAJAJ

16 Feb 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                                                                                First appeal No.933 of 2015

Date of the Institution: 09.10.2015

Date of Decision: 16.02.2017

 

Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., through SDO (OP), Sub Division, Model Town, Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                          .….Appellant

Versus

Smt. Geeta Bhaia wife of Tajinder Bhatia R/o 86-N, Lal Dwara, Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.Vineet Sehgal, proxy counsel for Mr. N.K. Bajaj, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                    Mr.Sanchit Punia, Advocate counsel for respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

1. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. -OP is in appeal against the Order dated 03.07.2015, passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Yamuna Nagar (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of Smt. Geeta Bhatia has been allowed by directing the OP not to charge the amount of Rs.19,332/- from the complainant shown as  ‘average adjustment’ vide memo No.6043, dated 09.09.2013 and by quashing the same.      
2. Briefly stated, the complainant has domestic electricity connection bearing No.YT/13/342 and has been paying the bills of consumption regularly for the last so many years. Despite that, the OP issued a demand of Rs.19,332/- as arrears. When the complainant approached the OP and enquired about the arrears, it transpired that the alleged amount related to the year 2010 and 2011, which fact was pointed out by the Internal Audit Department of OP. Aggrieved against this, the complainant approached the District Forum for the redressal of his grievance alleging deficiency in service. 
3. Pursuant to notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed the written reply pleading that the account of the complainant was overhauled due to change of meter on 29.05.2010 and 29.07.2011 and a sum of Rs.19332/- was charged by the OP, as per calculation made by Internal Audit Department. However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas of the OPs and allowed the complaint by quashing the demand in question. 
4. Against the impugned order, the OPs/appellant has filed appeal before us reiterating their pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. It is evident that the alleged demands relate to the year 2010 & 2011. It is for the first time in the year 2013, the OPs raised this demand. Prior to this no demand notice was ever issued by the OP and this time also it has been done on the asking of the Internal Audit Department of OP. Otherwise, the complainant has been paying the bills regularly. This demand is obviously barred by time and the delay can not be condoned only by taking the pretext of changing the meters.   Therefore, the learned District Forum has rightly quash the demand and directed the OPs not to charge the allege amount. We do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the OPs and uphold the Order passed by the learned District Forum.

 

February 16th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.