Per Mr P N Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

None present for the Revisionist. 

It appears that Mr Sopan N Patil – respondent herein had filed consumer complaint bearing No.CC/16/2007 before District Consumer Forum, Buldhana against the MSEDCL / revisionist herein.  The Forum below partly allowed the complaint and directed the o.p- MSEDCL that the bill issued to the complainant should be cancelled and new revised bill should be issued to the complainant / respondent herein, the amount of `2,000/- deposited by the complainant as per the interim order of the Forum, should be adjusted in the revised bill to be issued to the complainant.  The o.p. was also directed to pay `1,250 towards physical and mental harassment and `750/- towards cost of proceedings. 

Aggrieved by this order o.p. has filed this revision against the order deciding finally the consumer complaint. It should be known to the Advocate for the revision petitioner that against the final order passed by the Forum, appeal is required to be preferred u/s15 of Consumer Protection Act. But he has preferred revision petition, which is not tenable in law.  On this ground the revision petition is required to be dismissed. Hence, the following order:-

ORDER

1.      Revision petition is dismissed.

2.      Parties are left to bear their own cost.

3.      Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

Pronounced on 29.04.2011.

sj