Haryana

StateCommission

A/520/2017

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUKTAR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

RECEIVED FROM NCDRC,NEW DELHI

18 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                          Appeal No. 520 of 2017

                                                          In First Appeal No. 2659 of 2005

Date of Institution: 17.04.2017

Date of Decision:  18.09.2017

 

S.D.O., “OP”, S/Div. UHBVNL, Kalayat, District Kaithal.

 

 

…Appellant-Opposite Party No.2

 

Versus

 

1.      Mukhtiar Singh son of Jodha Ram,

 

2.      Umesh son of Nafe Singh,

 

          Both residents of Village Simla, Tehsil and District Kaithal.

 

 

…Respondents-Complainants

 

 

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                   Shri Balbir Singh, Judicial Member.

                                            

Present:     Shri Ajay Pathak, counsel for the appellant.

                                      

O R D E R

 

 NAWAB SINGH, J. (ORAL)

          Complaint No.376 of 2003 titled ‘Mukhtiar Singh and another Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others’ was decided by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kaithal (for short ‘District Forum’) vide order dated September 16^th, 2005. For ready reference, operative part of the order is reproduced as under:

“The respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to install the transformer of 63 KVA which was in the name of Mewa Singh and from which the complainants were drawing electricity on 12.1.2004. The respondents No.1 and 2 are also directed to ensure the regular supply of electricity to the complainant from that installed transformer.”

 

2.      Against the said order, UHBVNL, Kalayat-opposite party No.2 filed an appeal before this Commission. There was delay of 57 days in filing the appeal. Application for condonation of delay and the appeal was dismissed by Justice R.C. Kathuria, President (as he then was) vide order dated February 09^th, 2006.

3.      Aggrieved of the said order, UHBVNL, Kalayat filed revision petition before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi and the same was allowed, whereby delay of 57 days in filing the appeal before this Commission was condoned with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by UHBVNL to the complainant and the order dated February 09^th, 2006 of this Commission was set aside. The matter was remitted to this Commission for deciding the appeal on merits after giving opportunity to both the parties.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellant has placed on record affidavits (Annexures A1 and A2) of Mukhtiar Singh and Umesh-complainants, duly attested by him, stating that they are satisfied with the supply of electricity by UHBVNL and have no complaint against the department. They have further stated that they do not claim anything against the department. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed being infructuous.

 

         

Announced 18.09.2017

(Balbir Singh) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

  D.R.