NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/1106/2012

MAJOR M.S. DYAL (RETD.) - Complainant(s)

Versus

SECRETARY, DEPT. OF WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

27 Jan 2014

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 1106 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 29/12/2011 in Appeal No. 1129/2011 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. MAJOR M.S. DYAL (RETD.)
VPO Aimah Jattan Via Binjon
Hoshiarpur - 144520
Punjab
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. SECRETARY, DEPT. OF WATER SUPPLY & SANITATION & ANR.
Punjab
Chandigarh
Chandigarh
2. Sub Divl Engineer,
Water Supply & Santiation ,Sub Division No-1
Garhshankar
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :
Mr. B.S. Sharma, Advocate

Dated : 27 Jan 2014
ORDER

Petitioner has already been granted exemption as per application for exemption filed earlier. 2. Petitioner, who was complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshiarpur (for short, istrict Forum, had filed a consumer complaint against the respondents/opposite parties on the allegation that water supply to his house remained disconnected from 27.8.2008 to 6.1.2009 and from 12.2.2009 to 16.2.2010. Petitioner had written various letters to respondents in this regard also. However, the same were not responded. Accordingly, petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum. 3. The consumer complaint was contested by the respondents. 4. District Forum, vide its order dated 22.6.2011 dismissed the complaint of the petitioner. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short, tate Commission. 6. The State Commission, vide its impugned order dated 29.12.2011 allowed the appeal of the petitioner partly with cost of Rs.5,000/- and respondents were directed to grant 50% rebate to the petitioner out of the rental amount of Rs.1,135/- paid by him. 7. Not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, petitioner has filed the present revision seeking enhancement. 8. Initially, the petitioner has appeared before this Commission. Later on, he has filed an application seeking exemption from personal appearance and the same has been allowed. 9. It is an admitted fact that water connection of the petitioner has now since been restored. It also transpires from the record that his water supply remained suspended for 16 months 16 days. Now, once the water connection has been restored, the State Commission has rightly awarded the compensation as noted above. 10. Accordingly, in our opinion, compensation granted by the State Commission is just, fair and adequate and we do not find any ground for enhancement of the same. Accordingly, the present revision petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. 11. Copy of this order be sent to the petitioner.

 
......................J
V.B. GUPTA
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
REKHA GUPTA
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.