Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/679/2014

Smt. Kusum Prabha Sharma w/o Lat. Gajendr Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

J.V.V.N.Ltd. Through Assistent Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Sharma

20 Apr 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

APPEAL NO: 679 /2014

 

Smt.Kusumprabha Sharma w/o late Sh.Gajendra Sharma r/o 128 Adarsh Bagar B, Bajaria, Sawaimadhopur

Vs.

Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., Sawaimadhopur through A.En.

 

Date of Order 20.4.2015

 

Before:

 

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mrs. Sunita Ranka- Member

Mr.Liyakat Ali -Member

 

Mr.Sandeep Sharma counsel for the appellant

Mr. Purshotam Sharma counsel for the respondent

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of learned

2

 

DCF Sawaimadhopur dated 22.4.2014 by which it dismissed the complaint.

 

The complainant who is an electricity consumer received a bill of Rs. 50814/- in the month of May 2013 while his average monthly consumption in the past was not more than 150-200 units. The respondents submitted that complainant's meter was found defective from July 2010 to March 2013 and on the basis of average of past consumption, arrear of Rs. 50814/- has been raised. The learned DCF accepted this version and dismissed the complaint.

 

We have perused the file and we find no report on record which shows when the meter was removed and when was it inspected and who checked the meter and found it defective. If the meter was defective since July 2010 why did not the respondents replace it during this period and how they reached this conclusion that meter was defective from July 2010. The learned DCF has also dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant had submitted her matter before the Settlement Committee and a sum of Rs. 11639/- have been reduced from the outstanding bill. It directed the complainant to file the review before the Committee. We think that the consumer has not lost

3

 

her right to file a consumer complaint for deficiency of service.

 

In view of the above, we accept this appeal and the demand of Rs. 50,814/- raised against the complainant is dropped.

 

 

Member Member Presiding Member

 

 

nm