PRITAM SINGH BRAR Vs. CHANDIGARH ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed by the appellant against order dated 19.11.2004 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum -I, U.T., Chandigarh, whereby complaint of the appellant was partly accepted and it was held that the Chandigarh Electricity Department (respondent No. 1) had illegally raised the demand on the basis of average consumption as it failed to follow the procedure in case of meter found dead, stop or defective. However, no relief was granted with regard to the amount of compensation charges and charges for excess connected load as the complainant could not substantiate his case.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts are that Sh. Sudershan Goel s/o Sh. R.R. Goel was the owner of SCF No. 179, Sector -7 -C, Chandigarh. The appellant purchased it through agreement to sell and power of attorney dated 8.4.2002, and later on, the lease deed was transferred in his name on 18.3.2003. It was also got mentioned in the agreement to sell that all the previous dues of electricity and other departments would be paid by the seller, and further, he had paid all the dues of the Electricity Department till March, 2002. After its purchase, the premises remained locked for about eight months and the appellant used to receive the monthly bill of Rs. 3,000 as minimum charges. However, in the month of August, 2002 he received bill No. 99994 for Rs. 24,697, which was highly exaggerated. On inquiry, he came to know that the meter in the premises remained dead stop during the period, May, 1995 to September, 1996, and the bills during the said period, had been calculated on the basis of average taken from November, 1994 to May, 1995, which was to the tune of Rs. 11,174 and accordingly the amount was added in the bill.

(3.) IT was next averred that the department was not competent to recover the amount from him, since, it related to a period of 6 years back and limitation to recover it had already expired and no notice for recovery of the amount was served upon him earlier. He had also approached the Dispute Settlement Committee of the department on 19.9.2002 for settling the dispute but his request was rejected vide order dated 9.6.2003.