M/S. AULAKH ICE FACTORY & MILK CHILLING CENTRE - Opp.Party(s)
MR. TARUNVIR SINGH KHEHAR
22 Jan 2010
ORDER
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4140 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 27/07/2009 in Appeal No. 670/2003 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARDThrough Its Chairman, The MallPatialaPunjab
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. M/S. AULAKH ICE FACTORY & MILK CHILLING CENTREThrough S. Jagir Singh - Its Partner, Village Mahal, Ram Tirath RoadAmritsarPunjab
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
MR. TARUNVIR SINGH KHEHAR
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 22 Jan 2010
ORDER
Heard counsel for the Petitioner. The District Forum had allowed the complaint and directed the present Petitioner to refund the amount of Rs.49,566/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till payment. Besides this, the present Petitioner was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- as also cost of Rs.500/-. This order was challenged by the Petitioner by filing appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum except that the rate of interest was reduced from 12% p.a. to 7.5% p.a. The Petitioner has now come against concurrent findings of two Fora. The State Commission held that the Petitioner had failed to prove M.E. Lab report dated 26.7.2001 and as such the demand of Rs.6,51,109/- raised by the Petitioner vide Bill dated 1.8.2001 on the basis of lab report dated 26.7.2001 was unfounded. In this respect, it is appropriate to quote what has been stated by the State Commission in Paragraphs nos.15 and 16 of the order which read as under:- 15. As per the version of the appellants, the electric meter was checked in the M.E. Lab on 26.7.2001 and the electric meter was found running slow by 50%. However, the M.E. lab report has not been proved by the appellants. Therefore, the demand of Rs.6,51,109/- raised by the appellants vide bill dated 1.8.2001 on the basis of M.E. Lab report dated 26.7.2001 is unfounded. 16. Admittedly the respondent had filed a petition before Chief Electrical Inspector, who had directed to restoration of electric connection but still the appellants still insisted that the respondent should deposit certain amount and they got deposited the amount of Rs.49,566/- on 13.3.2002 for period from 5.9.2001 to 5.3.2002. When the appellants had failed to prove the legality of the demand raised by them, therefore, it was not justified on their part to compel the respondent to deposit the amount of Rs.49,566/-. (emphasis added) The State Commission not only ordered refund of the said amount of Rs.49,566/- but has also awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- since the electric connection had been disconnected from 11.8.2001 to 14.3.2002 due to which factory remained closed. Taking all aspects into consideration, the State Commission has reduced the interest from 12% p.a. to 7.5% p.a. In my opinion, no case has been made out by the Petitioner for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as I do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of two fora below. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
