THE GENERAL MANAGER, UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND ORS. Vs. NATIONAL FERTILIZERS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only ground taken by the Electricity Ombudsman, for over-ruling the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum's clear finding that the case of respondent is barred by limitation, is that there was correspondence going on between the parties and since final decision had not been taken, therefore, the period of limitation kept on getting extended.

(2.) The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that the letter dtd. 8/11/2008 (Annexure P-1) was replied by the General Manager, vide his letter dtd. 19/5/2009 (Annexure P-2) and , therefore, in view of that reply, the limitation stood extended, is not tenable as the first letter itself is time barred for the purposes of filing the complaint before the Consumer Grievances Redressal Forum ( for short 'CGRF') in terms of Clause 8.1 of the Regulation of Haryana Electricity Regulatory Commission (Guidelines for Establishment of Forum for Redressal of Grievances of the Consumers) and (Electricity Ombudsman) Regularion, 2004.

(3.) Having gone through the pleadings and heard the learned counsels for the parties, I am not in agreement with the reasoning assigned by the Ombudsman.