Punjab State Electricity Board V/S Sh. Malkit Singh - Consumer Court Case

Punjab

Bhatinda

CC/07/212

Sh. Malkit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Electricity Board - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Ashok Gupta Advocate

07 Feb 2008

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
Opp. New Bus Stand, Bathinda
consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/212

Sh. Malkit Singh						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Punjab State Electricity Board A.E.E./S.D.O. Sh. Lakhvir Singh Sh. Jaspal Singh						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

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.

ORDER

7.2.08 Present Counsel for the parties. Also complainant Malkiat Singh in person. Complainant Malkiat Singh and counsel for the complainants want to make statement. Be recorded. Member Member President, D.C.F. Statement of Sh.Malkiat Singh son of Late Sh.Joginder Singh,aged 54 years,Agricultrist,Resident of Bibiwala on oath and Sh.Ashok Gupta,counsel for the complainants W.O. Several documents have been brought on record by opposite parties No.1&2. They have also moved application for amendment of reply of the complailnt on the ground that the record was very old i.e. more than 14 years old and was not traceable at the filing of the reply of the main complaint. Now record has been traced which has changed the total circumstances. Copies of the record have been produced by opposite parties No.1 &2 and amendment has been sought in the reply of the complaint. In view of the record, complainants have to redraft the complaint. Amendment in the complaint cannot serve the purpose and material facts in the complaint have to be changed. In these circumstances, on account of the new developments, complainants do not want to proceed with this complaint at thils stage. It mayl be dismissed as withdrawn with permission to the complainants to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. RO&AC Member Member President, D.C.F. Statement of Sh.Naveen Goyal,counsel for the opposite parties No.1&2 W.O. Opposite parties No.1&2 have no objection if prayer made by the complainants is allowed. RO&AC Member Member President, D.C.F. 7.2.08 Present Malkiat Singh complainant in person. Sh.Ashok Gupta,counsel for the complainants. Sh.Naveen Goyal,counsel, for opposite parties No.1&2. Sh.Sandeep Baghla,counsel for opposite parties No.3 to 5. Prayer has been made by complainant Malkiat Singh and learned counsel for the complainants for withdrawal of this complaint with permilssion to file a fesh one on the same cause of action on the grounds that copies of several documents have been placed on record by opposite parties No.1&2 and that they (opposite parties No.1&2) have moved an application for amendment of the reply of the complaint on the ground that record was very old i.e.more than 14 years ago and as such, was not traceable at the time and traced record has changed the entire circumstances. Complainants seek that in view of the traced record, copies of which have been placed on the file, they will have to re-draft the complaint and its amendment cannot serve the purpose as material facts in it have to be changed. Learned counsel for opposite parties No.1&2 have made the above statement to the effect that opposite parties No.1&2 have no objection ilf prayer made by the complaints for withdrawal of the complaint with permilssion to file a fresh one is allowed. Learned counsel for opposite parties No.3 to 5 opposes the prayer. We have considered all the relevant facts and circumstances of this case. Opposite parties No.1 &2 have already moved an application for amendment of the reply of the amiln complaint on the ground that earlier reply of the complaint has been submitted by them only on the basis of the record of 1994. At that time, old record relating to the year 1966 was not available. Now old record has been traced. On the basis of the fact that opposite parties No.1&2 have brought on file the copies of the record, complainants seek withdrawal of this complaint with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the view that prayer of the complainants deserves to be accepted as amendment of the complaint may not serve the purpose of the complainants as material facts have to be changed by them as per the new record placed on the file by opposite parties No.1&2. No prejudice is likely to be caused to the opposite parties if permission is accorded to the complainants to withdraw this complaint with permission to file a fresh on on the same cause of action as they can rebut their version by way of filing replies of the complaint. Accordingly,prayer made by the complainants is allowed. This complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 is dismissed as withdrawn. Complainants are at liberty to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned. Member Member President, D.C.F.

7.2.08 Present Counsel for the parties. Also complainant Malkiat Singh in person. Complainant Malkiat Singh and counsel for the complainants want to make statement. Be recorded. Member Member President, D.C.F. Statement of Sh.Malkiat Singh son of Late Sh.Joginder Singh,aged 54 years,Agricultrist,Resident of Bibiwala on oath and Sh.Ashok Gupta,counsel for the complainants W.O. Several documents have been brought on record by opposite parties No.1&2. They have also moved application for amendment of reply of the complailnt on the ground that the record was very old i.e. more than 14 years old and was not traceable at the filing of the reply of the main complaint. Now record has been traced which has changed the total circumstances. Copies of the record have been produced by opposite parties No.1 &2 and amendment has been sought in the reply of the complaint. In view of the record, complainants have to redraft the complaint. Amendment in the complaint cannot serve the purpose and material facts in the complaint have to be changed. In these circumstances, on account of the new developments, complainants do not want to proceed with this complaint at thils stage. It mayl be dismissed as withdrawn with permission to the complainants to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. RO&AC Member Member President, D.C.F. Statement of Sh.Naveen Goyal,counsel for the opposite parties No.1&2 W.O. Opposite parties No.1&2 have no objection if prayer made by the complainants is allowed. RO&AC Member Member President, D.C.F. 7.2.08 Present Malkiat Singh complainant in person. Sh.Ashok Gupta,counsel for the complainants. Sh.Naveen Goyal,counsel, for opposite parties No.1&2. Sh.Sandeep Baghla,counsel for opposite parties No.3 to 5. Prayer has been made by complainant Malkiat Singh and learned counsel for the complainants for withdrawal of this complaint with permilssion to file a fesh one on the same cause of action on the grounds that copies of several documents have been placed on record by opposite parties No.1&2 and that they (opposite parties No.1&2) have moved an application for amendment of the reply of the complaint on the ground that record was very old i.e.more than 14 years ago and as such, was not traceable at the time and traced record has changed the entire circumstances. Complainants seek that in view of the traced record, copies of which have been placed on the file, they will have to re-draft the complaint and its amendment cannot serve the purpose as material facts in it have to be changed. Learned counsel for opposite parties No.1&2 have made the above statement to the effect that opposite parties No.1&2 have no objection ilf prayer made by the complaints for withdrawal of the complaint with permilssion to file a fresh one is allowed. Learned counsel for opposite parties No.3 to 5 opposes the prayer. We have considered all the relevant facts and circumstances of this case. Opposite parties No.1 &2 have already moved an application for amendment of the reply of the amiln complaint on the ground that earlier reply of the complaint has been submitted by them only on the basis of the record of 1994. At that time, old record relating to the year 1966 was not available. Now old record has been traced. On the basis of the fact that opposite parties No.1&2 have brought on file the copies of the record, complainants seek withdrawal of this complaint with permission to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, we are of the view that prayer of the complainants deserves to be accepted as amendment of the complaint may not serve the purpose of the complainants as material facts have to be changed by them as per the new record placed on the file by opposite parties No.1&2. No prejudice is likely to be caused to the opposite parties if permission is accorded to the complainants to withdraw this complaint with permission to file a fresh on on the same cause of action as they can rebut their version by way of filing replies of the complaint. Accordingly,prayer made by the complainants is allowed. This complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 is dismissed as withdrawn. Complainants are at liberty to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File be consigned. Member Member President, D.C.F.