NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/629/2012

KARNAIL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (NOW PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD.) & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. VARINDER SINGH RANA

09 Aug 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 629 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 13/01/2012 in Appeal No. 879/2009 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. KARNAIL SINGH
R/o Village NirmalKot $ Sadhmajra, tehsil, Samana
Patiala
Punjab
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (NOW PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LTD.) & ANR.
Through Secretary, The Mall
Patiala
Punjab
2. Sub Divisional Officer,
PSEB Sub Division, Badshapur, Tehsil, Samana
Patiala
Punjab
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Karan Dewan, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Vishal Dabas, Advocate

Dated : 09 Aug 2012
ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 13.1.2012 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short he State Commission in Misc. Appl. No. 13-A of 2012 in First Appeal No. 879/ 2009, the appellant before the State Commission has filed the present petition purportedly under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The application was made by the appellant before the State Commission and petitioner herein, praying the recall of the order dated 14.07.2011 by which order the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed in default in appearance of the appellant or his counsel. 2. We have heard counsel for the parties and have considered their respective submissions. The application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the State Commission and in our opinion, rightly so going by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of ajeev Hitender Pathak & Ors. Vs. Achyut Kashinath Karekar & Anr.[2011 9 SCC 541] In that decision the Supreme Court held that no other Consumer Fora except the National Commission has the power to review or recall its order passed by it. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the absence of the appellant and his counsel on the date of hearing, i.e., 14.07.2011, was not intentional, it was due to default on the part of the counsel for the appellant. Additionally it is submitted that petitioner has a good case on merits in appeal which has not been considered. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent supports the dismissal of the appeal and submits that no cogent ground has been shown for setting aside the order of dismissal of the appeal. Having considered the respective submissions, we are of the view that since the appeal of the appellant has been dismissed in default without adverting to the merit of the appeal, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to allow the petition and restore the appeal to the Board of the State Commission for deciding the appeal on merits in accordance with law. This would, however, be subject to cost of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited in the egal aid accountof the State Commission. We order accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 14.09.2012.

 
......................J
R.C. JAIN
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.