PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN (ORAL) Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 6th of September, 2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short the State Commission) in First Appeal No. 929 of 2002. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. against an order dated 21st of March, 2002 passed by the District Forum, Rohtak in Complaint No. 159 of 1999. By the said order, the District Forum had partly allowed the complaint filed by the petitioner herein and had directed the respondent-Haryana Vidyut Parsaran Nigam Ltd. to pay a compensation of Rs.75000/- for illegal disconnection, loss and damages suffered by the complainant. In the appeal, the State Commission has set aside the said order by observing that the complaint has been allowed merely on assumption and presumption, there being no evidence led from the side of the complainant to establish any actual financial loss suffered by it on account of such illegal disconnection of the electricity to the premises of the complainant. 2. We have heard Mr. Kalra, learned counsel for the petitioner. The Registry has reported a delay of 162 days in filing the present petition and an application for condonation of delay has also been filed on behalf of the petitioner. We have carefully considered the grounds/reasons set up in the said application. On doing so, we are of the opinion that the said grounds/reasons, even if they are believed to be true, do not afford sufficient cause entitling the petitioner for condonation of such large/undue delay in filing the present petition. The application is, therefore, declined. 3. Even otherwise, on merits also we find that the order passed by the State Commission is in strict consonance with the legal position and does not suffer from any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error, which calls for any interference by this Commission. 4. Dismissed. |
