NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1807/2011

ASSISTANT ENGINEER, JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HARIRAM - Opp.Party(s)

MR. S.N. BOHRA

14 Mar 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1807 OF 2011
 
(Against the Order dated 06/02/2011 in Appeal No. 201/2010 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, JODHPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS.
jodhpur vidhuyut, vitran nigam limit divisione
jodhpur
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. HARIRAM
village tapu, hadnam sagar tehsil osia
jodhpur
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. S.N. BOHRA
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 14 Mar 2012
ORDER

Complainants/respondents applied for electricity connection on concessional fee under “Rajiv Gandhi Rural Electrification Scheme”. Petitioner issued demand notice of Rs.1,700/- to each of the complainants, which was deposited by them on 21.4.2006. Despite the deposit of the amount as per demand notice by the respondents, the petitioner failed to provide the electricity connections. Aggrieved by this, respondents filed the complaint before the District Forum.

District Forum allowed the complaint directing the petitioner to provide electricity connection to the complainants. Rs.5,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.2,000/- as cost.

Petitioner being aggrieved filed an appeal before the State Commission, which has been dismissed with cost.

On 31.5.2011 counsel for the petitioner raised the contention that the connections could not be provided to the respondents on demand of Rs.1,700/- as the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Electrification Scheme of 2006 was replaced by a subsequent scheme, namely, Mukhya Mantri Rural Electrification Scheme in the year 2008.  In order to verify this fact, counsel for the petitioner was directed to put on record the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Electrification Scheme of 2006 as well as the Mukhya Mantri Rural Electrification Scheme of 2008.

In spite of five adjournments granted to the petitioner, petitioner has not put on record either of the two schemes. The last opportunity was granted on 15.12.2011 subject to payment of cost of Rs.2,500/-. Cost has been deposited. Counsel for the petitioner states that in spite of the efforts made, the department has not been able to trace either the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Electrification Scheme of 2006 or the Mukhya Mantri Electrification Scheme of 2008 from its record. He further states that the electricity connections were released to the complainants on 12.2.2012.  

Since the petitioner has released the electricity connections to the respondents/complainants, the revision petition has become infructuous and is dismissed as such. Otherwise also, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed for non-compliance of the previous order requiring the petitioner to put on record the copy of the aforesaid two schemes.

 
......................J
ASHOK BHAN
PRESIDENT
......................
VINEETA RAI
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.