NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3022/2015

PSPCL & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJBIR SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. SUD & SUD

11 Apr 2016

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3022 OF 2015
 
(Against the Order dated 29/06/2015 in Appeal No. 1301/2014 of the State Commission Punjab)
WITH
IA/8603/2015
1. PSPCL & ANR.
CITY SUB DIVSION, RAMPURA PHUL
DISTRICT : BATHINDA
PUNJAB
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. RAJBIR SINGH
NACHATTAR SINGH, R/O VILLAGE KOTRA KONANWALA,
DISTRICT : BATHINDA
PUNJAB
2. PSPCL,
THE MALL PATIALA
PUNJAB
...........Respondent(s)
REVISION PETITION NO. 3023 OF 2015
 
(Against the Order dated 27/05/2015 in Appeal No. 1505/2014 of the State Commission Punjab)
WITH
IA/8603/2015
1. PSPCL & ANR.
CITY SUB DIVSION, RAMPURA PHUL
DISTRICT : BATHINDA
PUNJAB
2. PSPCL,
THE MALL PATIALA
PUNJAB
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. BALDEV SINGH
S/O S.DOOLA SINGH, R/O LEHRA MOHABBAT
DISTRICT : BATHINDA
PUNJAB
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. JAIN, PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :
Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Addl. A.G., State of Punjab
Mr. Honey Khanna, Advocate
For the Respondent :
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate

Dated : 11 Apr 2016
ORDER

1.       Delay condoned in both the Revision Petitions.

2.       These two Revision Petitions, by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and its one of the functionaries, are directed against the orders, dated 29.06.2015 and 27.05.2015 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Chandigarh (for short “the State Commission”) in First Appeals No. 1301 and 1505 of 2014 respectively.  By the said orders, the State Commission has dismissed both the Appeals in default, as, despite repeated calls, the Petitioner Corporation had remained unrepresented before it.

3.       Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and bearing in mind the fact that a number of Complaints on the issue have been decided by the State Commission on merits, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner Corporation has made out a sufficient cause for non-appearance before the State Commission.

4.       Accordingly, both the Revision Petitions, being on the same cause of action, are allowed by this common order and First Appeals No. 1301 and 1505 of 2014 are restored to the board of the State Commission for disposal on merits, subject to the Petitioner Corporation paying to each of the Complainants a sum of ₹5000/-, in addition to ₹10,000/-, which has been paid to them towards travel and allied expenses in terms of order dated 05.02.2016.  The said additional amount shall be paid before the State Commission.

5.       The parties/their Counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 25.05.2016 for further proceedings.

6.       Both the Revision Petitions stand disposed of in the above terms, with no order as to costs.

 
......................J
D.K. JAIN
PRESIDENT
......................
M. SHREESHA
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.