Uttar Pradesh

StateCommission

RP/42/2016

Devendra Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ex Engg. UPPCL - Opp.Party(s)

A.K. Pandey

26 Jul 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP
C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010
 
Revision Petition No. RP/42/2016
(Arisen out of Order Dated 25/02/2016 in Case No. Ex/36/2016 of District Etawah)
 
1. Devendra Kumar
Etawah
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. Ex Engg. UPPCL
Etawah
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. Bal Kumari MEMBER
 
For the Petitioner:
For the Respondent:
Dated : 26 Jul 2016
Final Order / Judgement

ORAL

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P., Lucknow.

Revision No.42 of 2016

(Against the order dated 25.2.2016 passed in execution case no.36 of 2016 by the District Forum,  Etawah)

 

Devendra Kumar s/o Sri Virendra Prakash,

R/o Mohalla Sati Mandir, Kasba & Pargana,

Bhartana, District Etawah.                       …….Revisionist.

Versus

Adhishashi Abhiyanta, E.D.D.-II,

Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.,

Etawah.                                                      …Opp. Parties.  

 

Present:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Akhtar Husain Khan, President.  Hon'ble Smt. Bal Kumari, Member.

 

Sri A.K. Pandey for the Revisionist.

None for the OP.

 

Date: 26.7.2016

JUDGMENT

              Mr. Justice Akhtar Husain Khan, President

 

This is a revision against order dated 25.2.2016 passed by District Forum, Etawah in Execution Case no.36 of 2016, Devendra Kumar vs. Executive Engineer, EDD, whereby District Forum has dismissed the execution in full satisfaction on the ground that Judgment-debtor has furnished revised bill in compliance of order dated 23.10.2015 passed by District Forum in complaint case no.132 of 2008, Devendra Kumar vs. Executive Engineer, EDD.

It is contended by Ld. Counsel for revisionist that the revised bill has not been prepared as directed by District Forum in its above order dated 23.10.2015.

 

(2)

Perusal of impugned order dated 25.2.2016 passed in above execution case shows that revisionist/decree-holder has not been given opportunity to file objection against revised bill and the revised bill has been accepted by District Forum without affording opportunity of hearing to revisionist/decree-holder.

In view of above, we are of the view that the impugned order should be set aside and the District Forum should be directed to pass fresh order after affording opportunity of objection and hearing to revisionist/decree- holder as well as to opposite party/judgment-debtor.

The revision is allowed accordingly with direction to District Forum to pass fresh order after affording opportunity of objection and hearing to revisionist/decree- holder as well as to opposite party/judgment-debtor.     

 

 

 

(Justice Akhtar Husain Khan)      (Smt. Bal Kumari)

              President                                     Member

Jafri PA II

Court No.1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTAR HUSAIN KHAN]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Bal Kumari]
MEMBER

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.