B.S.E.S. YAMUNA POWER LIMITED vs LOVELY NARULA

THIS appeal has been filed assailling the order of the District Forum, Nand Nagari, Delhi dated 3.9.2003, passed in Complaint Case No. 452/2002, entitled Smt. Lovely Narula v. BSES Yamuna Power Ltd.

THE brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are, that the respondent was not receiving regular bills for consumption of electricity for quite some time. However, thereafter in August, 2002 the appellant finally raised a bill for Rs. 63,250/- dated 27.8.2002 which included misuse charges. THE respondent represented against the said bill on the ground that she had never misused the supply and had never received any show-cause notice prior to the levy of misuse charges. Since the representations of the appellant were not heeded, the appellant approached the District Forum praying for the revision of the bill after removal of misuse charges on the basis of minimum consumption charges. It was also prayed that the excess charges paid by the appellant be refunded with interest and the respondent be directed not to disconnect the electricity supply. THE appellant had also claimed Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment undergone by her on account of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent together with costs. The appellant in its reply/written version filed before the District Forum had raised the preliminary objection that the respondent was not the registered consumer in respect of the electric connection in question and was, therefore, not competent to file the present complaint. On merits it was stated that regular bills were being sent to the respondent for the consumption of electrcity. However, in May 1994 the meter had been removed. With respect to the show-cause notice issued to the respondent in respect of misuse charges, it was stated that the same could not be produced as the records including the MSR report for the year (sic. 1995) as well as the meter book had been destroyed as per rules. It was, therefore, prayed that the complaint being barred by limitation under Section 24-A of the Act was liable to be dismissed with costs.

The appellant District Forum however came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of deficiency in service and as such directed the appellant to revise the bill issued for the billing cycle July, 2002 by removing the misuse charges, as well as late payment charges. It was also directed that any amount paid in excess of Rs. 2,000/- by the respondent be adjusted in future bills and if the said amount exceeds Rs. 2,000/-, the same should be refunded to the respondent. The appellant was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as costs.

AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Commission. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant on the question of admission of the present appeal and have also carefully gone through the documents/material on record, including the written submissions filed on behalf of the appellant. The appellant has admitted that the meter in question was not installed in the premises of the respondent from May, 1994 to November, 1995. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the meter of the respondent showed the reading 9760 units on 10.3.1995 is contradictory. Furthermore, the appellant has not shown any justification for issuing the bill dated July, 2002 amounting to Rs. 63,250/- which includes misuse charges as well as arrears. No details have been furnished to the respondent regarding the period for which the misuse charges have been levied or the arrears charged. As such the appellant has been unable to justify the bill.

THE other contention of the appellant that the complaint of the respondent is time barred is also not substantiated. THE bill assailed by the respondent in his complaint pertains to the cycle July, 2000 and the complaint was filed in the same year. As such the present appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.