ORDER

Paramjit Singh, President

1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is holder of electric connection No.X23BD420638M and is paying electricity charges regularly.

2. That the complainant received a bill dated 8.5.2010 amounting to Rs.5020/- payable by due date. In the said bill, Rs.2100/- shown under the sundry charges column and Rs.295/-shown under meter rent. He immediately approached the opposite

-2-

party in his office and requested to clarify the charges shown under Sundry head and meter rent but the official did not give any satisfactory reply. In the above bill the opposite party has not given any details of the charges. As per their own sales regulation and rules, no sundry charges can be clubbed in the current consumption bill. Rather the opposite party is bound to give separate notice giving details of sundry charges. The amount cannot be clubbed in the current bill. Thus it is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence the present complaint.

3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising as many as four preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable in the present form, the complainant has got no locus-standi and cause of action to file the present complaint, the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from this Forum and the complainant is barred by his own act and conduct, omissions and commissions to file the present complaint. On merits, the opposite party refuted all the allegations made in the complaint and pleaded that the complainant has mentioned wrong number of connection, whereas his correct connection number is No.X23BD4240639M. It is denied if the complainant has been paying charges regularly and nothing is due against him. A sum of Rs.2100/- is due and outstanding on account of the arrears. The details of the same had been supplied to the complainant vide memo No.768 dated 8.4.2010. Hence the amount of Rs.2100/- has been rightly shown under the column of sundry charges. Hence there is no

-3-

deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with copies of bills Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence.

5. On the other hand the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OA along with documents Ex.O1 to Ex.O6 and closed the evidence.

6. The case to connect the complainant relates to amount of Rs.2199/- shown debited under the column of sundry charges in the bill dated 8/5/2010 by the opposite party No.2. It is alleged by the opposite parties that old meter of the complainant having capacity of 3X10-50 chargeable with monthly rent of rs.11/- was defective/burnt. So the same was replaced vide MCO No. 26/69305 with new TPT meter of capacity 3X10-60 bearing No.07311851, the monthly rent chargeable of which was Rs.81/- per month as per CC No.18/06. The complainant had challenged the aforesaid meter and as such the same was again changed vide MCO No. 104/68957 dated 17/12/07 with new TPT meter of the same capacity bearing NO.07311851 with monthly chargeable rent of Rs.81/- No doubt that opposite parties cannot be restrained from timely recovery of meter rentals from the complainant with regard to TPT meters installed from time to time at the premises of the complainant. But in the instant case, the amount of Rs.2100/- as arrears of meter rent have been charged by the opposite parties from the complainant at the behest of audit party vide half margin No.13 dated 29/3/2010 Ex.O3 being the difference in the monthly meter rent for the period

-4-

from Oct.2007 to March,2010.

It is well preposition of law that that no sum due from consumer be recoverable after two years from the date when it became due as laid down in a case reported as

" Surendra Nath SAhu vs. Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Ltd. SCDRC 113."

Since the disputed amount of Rs.2100/-as arrears of rentals of TPT meters also includes the recovery of the amount beyond period of two years as such. the opposite parties are not entitled to recover whole amount of

So we hereby quash memo No. 768 dated 8/4/2010 of opposite party No.2 Ex.R4 vide which demand of Rs.2100/- was raised to the complainant. But the opposite parties are at liberty to recover the meter rent in future from the complainant at the rate of Rs.81/- per month on account of installation of TPT meter at the premises of the complainant as per standing instructions of the department, the complaint of the complainant is disposed of accordingly and the parties are left to bear their own costs.

Let certified copies of order be supplied to the parties without delay and file be consigned to record room.

Announced : Shashi Narang Gulshan Prashar Paramjit Singh

14.9.2010 Member Member President