Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/10/2018

Gambhir Singh s/o Radhakishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited Jaipur Rajasthan - Opp.Party(s)

Manoj Avasthi

31 Jan 2018

ORDER

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

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 10/2018

 

Gambhir Singh s/o Radhakishan r/o Jagdamba colony, Saipau Road, Dholpur District Dholpur.

Vs.

Managing Director, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 31.1.2018

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

 

Mr. Manoj Awasthi counsel for the appellant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the order passed by the District Forum, Dholpur dated 29.11.2017 whereby the original complaint is dismissed. The matter has come upon

2

 

application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act as the appeal has been filed with delay of 4 days. Looking at the facts mentioned in the application the delay is condoned.

 

The contention of the appellant is that respondents are deficient. Recovery is time barred. No reading was recorded in his presence and rule 30 of Terms and Conditions of Supply of Electricity 2004 has not been complied. Hence, the claim should have been allowed.

 

Heard the counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment as well as photo copies of documents submitted by the appellant.

 

There is no dispute about the fact that the inflated bill was raised which was objected by the complainant. The contention of the respondents was that the earlier meter was burnt which was replaced and reading of the earlier meter was recorded through HST machine and thereafter on audit objection amended bill was sent. For defective meters the proper provision is sec. 28 whereas it was the duty of the respondents to remove the meter and a joint inspection report

3

 

should have been prepared and in the present matter Anx. 3 report has been prepared in presence of the consumer and reading has also been recorded. Audit report has also been submitted and on the basis of audit report amended bill was sent. Hence, no deficiency has been committed by the respondents.

 

The other contention of the appellant is that admittedly the dues were of year 2013 to 2015 which could not be recovered after delay of more than two years but this issue has already been considered by this Commission in First Appeal No. 885/2016 A.En. ( O & M) Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vs. Rahamatullah Khan and it has been held that electricity charges would become due only after the bill is sent and the amount could not be said to be time barred.

 

Hence, in view of the above the Forum below has rightly dismissed the claim. There is no merit in this appeal not worth admission and stands dismissed.

(Nisha Gupta) President

nm