BSES YAMUNA POWER LTD. Vs. BINA RANI GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RP/568/2007

(2.) The respondent/complainant did not enter appearance despite publication of the notice in the newspapers and hence was proceeded against exparte.

(3.) The facts of the case as stated in the consumer complaint filed by the Bina Rani Gupta are that she purchased property No. L-37, Naveen Shahdara, Delhi vide sale-deed dated 29.08.2003, alongwith electricity connection which had been obtained for domestic purpose. It is alleged that the opposite party (OP), or its predecessor-in-interest, Delhi Vidyut Board (DVB) was raising electricity bills at correct tariff initially, but later on started raising the bills on higher tariff, including misuse charges without sending any show-cause notice etc. It was further alleged that the OP had included the arrears of the amount of some cheques, which had bounced more than two years ago. There was, therefore, deficiency in service on their part. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP to withdraw the mis-use charges/late payment surcharge and to refund the amount paid in excess to the OP alongwith interest. A direction was also sought to get a complete statement of account and withdraw all demands of arrears, which were not included immediately after the said cheques were bounced. In their written statement filed before the District Forum, the OP, BSES Yamuna Power Limited stated that the misuse charges were levied in the year 1994 after issue of a proper show-cause notice. The electric connection had been sanctioned in the name of Rakesh Kumar Gupta and hence, the present complainant did not have the locus standi to file the complaint. Since the misuse charges were levied in the year 1994, the complaint was barred by limitation u/s 24A of the Act. The OP had privity of contract with the previous owner only. The OP requested that the complaint should be dismissed.