NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2473/2006

VISHWANATH SACHAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

DELHI JAL BOARD - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

21 Jul 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2473 OF 2006
(Against the Order dated 05/03/2006 in Appeal No. 203/2006 of the State Commission Delhi)
1. VISHWANATH SACHANE-1A. GALI NO 16. SADH NAGAR , PALAM COLONY NEW DELHI - ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. DELHI JAL BOARDNAJAFGARH ZONE THORUGH ITS, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER . NAHAFGARH NEW DELHI ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :IN PERSON
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 21 Jul 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

Notice of the revision was sent to the opposite party – Executive Engineer, Delhi Jal Board, Najafgarh Zone, Najafgarh, Delhi. The notice has been refused by the opposite party. Refusal amounts to service. Accordingly the petitioner was heard. He has placed before us complaints made from time to time as also bills paid by him. According to the complainant, his grievance was never redressed by the opposite party – Delhi Jal Board in spite of repeatedly taking up the matter with the authority. The District Forum after examining the grievances of the complainant found that Delhi Jal Board was deficient in service and for the said deficiency, the Delhi Jal Board was directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental tension and harassment and Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. This order of the District Forum was challenged by the Delhi Jal Board before the State Commission. The State Commission while upholding the deficiency on the part of the Delhi Jal Board and after noting that even the higher authorities are insensitive to the grievances of the consumers, reduced the amount of compensation to Rs.5,000/- which would include the cost of litigation. In our opinion, in the light of evidence on record, there was absolutely no justification for the State Commission to have interfered with the order of compensation and award of cost of litigation passed by the District Forum and more so without even giving notice to the complainant. In view of this, the order of the State Commission is set aside and the order of the District Forum is restored. Revision is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms with costs of Rs.2,500/- to be paid by the opposite party - Delhi Jal Board to the complainant.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER