ORDER K.S. Gupta, Member—In this revision, challenge is to the order dated 29.11.2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission UT, Chandigarh dismissing appeal against the order dated 13.11.2000 of a District Forum whereby petitioner was directed to deduct amount of Rs. 65,451 plus surcharge from the bill payable by 26.9.97 and to refund the amount, if already paid, to the respondent. 2. Complaint seeking certain directions to the petitioner/opposite party filed by the respondent/complainant was contested by the petitioner alleging that the respondent was habitual in tampering with the meter and the meter(s) becoming dead stop/sticky were replaced on 23-6-1989 and 25-3-1991. Meter(s) remained dead during the period from April, 1989 to October, 1989, April 1990 to October, 1990 and April 1991 to October, 1991. It was further alleged that in the year 1997 audit party overhauled the account of the respondent and amount of Rs. 65,451 was assessed by the audit party on average basis. There was, thus, no deficiency in service on the part of petitioner. In the opinion of the State Commission, recovery of the said amount of Rs. 65,451 being beyond three years, was time barred . 3. Submission advanced by Shri Arvind Nayar for petitioner is that the delay in making demand of Rs. 65,451 was on account of finalisation of the account. According to him, replacement of meter twice would show that the meters were being tampered with by the respondent. As noticed above, the petitioner alleged that the meters remained dead stop/sticky for some months in the years 1989, 1990 and 1991. But the demand for the said amount was raised in the bill payable by 26.9.1997 after a lapse of more than 6 years. It does not appeal to reasons that such a long time would be taken in finalising the account as contended. Further, merely on ground of meters having been replaced twice, no presumption in regard to the meters having been replaced twice, no presumption in regard to the meters being tempered with by the respondent can be raised. Petitioner corporation seem to have not led any cogent evidence of the meters being tampered with by the respondent. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act. Accordingly revision is dismissed. Revision dismissed. *******