NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1511/2012

GURDEV SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BORD & 2 ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. DINESH VERMA & MR. SURESH KUMAR MR. PRABHU DAYAL TIWARI

19 Jul 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1511 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 29/08/2011 in Appeal No. 1341/2006 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. GURDEV SINGH
R/o Village Sadhugarh Tehsil
Fatehgarh Sahib
Punjab
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BORD & 2 ORS.
The Mall ,through its Secretary
Patiala
Punjab
2. XEn ( Operational ) Punjab State Electricity Board Division
Shirind
Fatehgarh Sahib
Punjab
3. SDO (Sub Urban )
Sirhind ,Tehsil
Fatehgarh Sahib
Punjab
...........Respondent(s)

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

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Prabhu Dayal Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 19 Jul 2012
ORDER

Aggrieved by the order dated 29.08.2011 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in First Appeal No. 1341 of 2006, the original complainant has approached this Commission with the present petition.  The appeal before the State Commission was filed against the order dated 07.09.2006 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fategarh Sahib, by which order the District Forum had allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party-Punjab State Electricity Board not to release the electric

-2-

connection to other persons without the consent of the complainant who has borne the expenditure of the line and the transformer.  The State Commission allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.  The petition has been filed belatedly and an application for condonation of delay has also been filed. 

2.      The Registry has reported 110 days delay in filing the revision petition and according to the petitioner the delay is of 41 days.   We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions.  In our view, the application for condonation of delay does not disclose any sufficient cause entitling him to a favourable exercise of the judicial discretion vested in this Commission in this regard.

3.      The application is declined.  Even after doing so, we have examined the merits of the present petition and in our view the State Commission has given cogent reasons based on the statutory provisions as to why no exclusive right could be claimed by the present petitioner over the line and the transformer which was installed for giving electric connection to the petitioner.  The order is well reasoned and justified one, and suffers from no illegality, material irregularity and jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Commission.

 

-3-

The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed on both the grounds of delay and on merit.

 

 
......................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.