NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4606/2010

SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JACOB MATHEW & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. M.T. GEORGE

22 Feb 2011

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 4606 OF 2010
 
(Against the Order dated 28/07/2010 in Appeal No. 309/2003 of the State Commission Kerala)
1. SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.
Vaidyuthi Bhavan
Thiruvananthapuram
Kerala
2. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
Electrical Major Section, Ayarkunnam
Kottayam
Kerala
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. JACOB MATHEW & ANR.
M.M. Rubbers, Amayannoor
Kottayam
Kerala
2. M.G. VALAPPAN NAIR
Mary Matha Rubbers, Amayannoor P.O. Puthenpadickal House, Neerikadu
Kottayam
Kerala
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SURESH CHANDRA, PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. M.T. GEORGE
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 22 Feb 2011
ORDER

Both the above mentioned revision petitions are based on similar facts and grounds and hence have been taken up together for admission hearing and are being disposed of by this common order.   Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.  Challenge in these revision petitions is to the order dated 28.07.2010 passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal  Commission (‘State Commission’ for short)  by which the appeals of the petitioners filed against the orders dated 31.12.2002 passed by the District Forum came to be dismissed.  By its orders, the District Forum directed the petitioner – Board to cancel the electricity bills in question issued by the petitioner – Board and also to pay cost of Rs. 750/- to the complainant/respondent herein.  We have carefully gone through the orders of the District Forum accepting the complaints of the complainants/respondents herein based on appraisal of the issues and the evidence adduced before it by the parties. The orders of the District Forum have been upheld by the State Commission by its impugned order.  Both the fora below have allowed the complaints and rejected the defence of the petitioner – Board based on concurrent findings of the facts.   We do not find any good ground to interfere with their concurrent findings while exercising our revisional jurisdiction. Both the revision petitions, therefore, are liable for dismissal and are dismissed accordingly, with no order as to cost.

 

 

 
......................
SURESH CHANDRA
PRESIDING 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.