Delhi

StateCommission

FA/12/945

V.K. CHATURVEDI - Complainant(s)

Versus

NORTHERN RAILWAYS - Opp.Party(s)

28 Nov 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                             Date of Decision:28.11.2016

First Appeal No. 945/2012

(Arising out of the order dated 14.09.2012 passed in Complaint Case No. 548/2008 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (North) Tis Hazari Delhi)

In the matter of:

Sh. V.K.Chaturvedi

R/o House No.256/5

Sector-16, Vasundhara

Ghaziabad (UP)                            .........Appellant

 

Versus

 

1. Sr. Security Commissioner

Panchkuian Road, DLI Division

New Delhi

 

2. VarunNiketan

Delhi Jal Board

Rajpur Road

Delhi                                     ..........Respondents

                                                                  

CORAM

N P KAUSHIK                         -                  Member (Judicial)

 

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                   Yes

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                  Yes

 

N P KAUSHIK – MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

JUDGEMENT

1.       Present appeal is directed against the orders dated 14.09.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum Tis Hazari Delhi. Vide impugned orders the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

      Parties hereinafter shall be referred to by their original status in the complaint.

2.       Complainant Sh. V.K.Chaturvedi was allotted quarter No. 98-H Railway Colony Naya Bazar New Delhi being an employee of Railway Protection Force Northern Railways Delhi. Complainant occupied the said government accommodation from 1983 uptil 2005. He vacated the same only after initiation of eviction proceedings against him.
3.       Contention of the complainant is that BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. (OP-1) was the supplier and distributor of electricity to his quarter @ voltage of 220V. Fluctuation in the voltage resulted into damage to his electric gadgets i.e. refrigerator, cooler, TV, geyser etc. He alleged that on 13.12.2001 there was a fire in the meter due to low voltage and fluctuation. Next contention of the complainant is that he was entitled to electricity for all the 24 hours of the day. He received the same for 12 hours a day only. Due to non-supply of electricity his children became ill and he spent huge amount on private doctors.
4.       Next grievance of the complainant is that his employer deducted an amount of Rs. 15,354/- from his salary on 12.04.1999 on account of arrears of electricity charges. He was not given any electricity bill.
5.       Complainant contended that deduction of electricity charges from his salary after a period of three years was barred by limitation.
6.       Admittedly BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.was not the service provider. It used to supply electricity to the railways in bulk.Railwaysruns its trains and supplies electricity to its employees’ houses from the said bulk supply. Coming to the contention of damage to the electric gadgets of the complainant, no details have been disclosed by the complainant in his complaint.
7.       In relation to the period of limitation, hitting the deduction from the salary, Ld. District Forum has rightly relied upon the case of the Punjab National Bankv. SurenderPrashad, AIR 1992 SC 1815.The Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the principle that the expiry ofperiod of limitation only bars the remedy but the rights are not extinguished. Railways was holding the amount due towards complainant as a ‘debtor’. Clearly the deduction from his salary of the arrears was not barred by limitation. In view of these reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merits. The same is dismissed.
8.       Copy of the orders be made available to the parties free of costs as per rules and thereafter the file be consigned to Records.

 

(N P KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

 

 

6.