NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4586/2012

UATTER HARYANA BIJLI VATRAN NIGAM LTD. ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAN SINGH & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. SUDHIR BISLA

07 Jan 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 4586 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 07/05/2012 in Appeal No. 470/2007 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. UATTER HARYANA BIJLI VATRAN NIGAM LTD. ANR.
Through Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan
PANCHKULA
HARYANA
2. The SDO (OP) Sub Divsion,
UHBVNL, Bilaspur
YAMUNA NAGAR
HARYANA
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. MAN SINGH & ANR.
R/o Bheel Chhapper Teshil,Jagadhari
YAMUNA NAGAR
HARYANA
2. Gulsher, S/o Meert Hasan,
Village Balaswa, Thana, Nangal
SAHARANPUR
HARYANA
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Dr. Sudhir Bisla, Advocate
Ms. Sumitra Bisla, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Anil Hooda, Proxy Counsel for
Mr. Narender Yadav, Advocate

Dated : 07 Jan 2014
ORDER

PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.      This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 07.05.2012 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in Appeal No. 470 of 2007 – Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Man Singh & Anr. by which while dismissing the appeal, order of the District Forum quashing the demand was upheld.

2.      Complainant filed complaint before the District Forum for quashing demand raised by the opposite party on the basis of tempering of seals of electricity meter. 

3.      This revision petition has been filed with application for condonation of delay of 111 days.

4.      Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

5.      As the complaint itself was not maintainable before the District Forum, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 111 days in filing the revision petition, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs by the petitioner to respondent within one month. 

 

6.      The State Commission dismissed the appeal as barred by 36 days as also on merits.  As the complaint itself was not maintainable before the District Forum, we deem it appropriate to condone the delay of 36 days in filing the appeal before the State Commission. 

7.      As far merits of the case are concerned, this complaint pertains to offence committed u/s 135 Indian Electricity Act and against the assessment made by Assessment Officer for the theft of electricity. In the light of judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5466 of 2012 “U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Anis Ahmad’, this complaint was not maintainable before District Forum under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

8.      Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 07.05.2012 passed by the learned State Commission in First Appeal No. 470 of 2007 is set aside and complaint stands dismissed.

9.      Liberty is granted to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy available to him before the appropriate Forum.

 

 
......................J
K.S. CHAUDHARI
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
DR. B.C. GUPTA
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.