NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2534/2009

JODHPUR VODYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

TEJA RAM - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ADITYA MADAN

11 Jan 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2534 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 11/06/2009 in Appeal No. 2/2009 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
1. JODHPUR VODYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.Through Executive Engineer, (District Division), JodhpurRajasthan ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. TEJA RAMS/o. Sh. Lalu Ram Ji, By Caste Meghwal, R/o. Bhatio ki dhani, Tanawara, Post: Salawas Tanawara, Panchayat Samiti LooniJodhpurRajasthan ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 11 Jan 2010
ORDER

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.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner on admission. Respondent despite issuance of notice has chosen not to contest the proceedings and thus he is proceeded ex-parte. Brief facts are that respondents moved petitioner-authority for release of domestic electric connection with deposit of Rs.1600/- which did not find favour with petitioner-authority who rejected application raising further demand of Rs.1900/- required under Rajiv Gandhi Scheme launched by Government. Dissatisfied with non release of electricity connection, respondent moved District Forum filling a complaint which in its interim order granted stay directing petitioner-authority to release electricity connection on the basis of deposits made by consumer leaving question of authority to raise further demand for release of electricity connection to be adjudicated in the proceeding. The petitioner-corporation dissatisfied with interim order of District Forum moved State Commission which too having affirmed order of District Forum dismissed appeal. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that since provision of electricity connection on deposits made, was not financially and technically feasible for the Board, further demand for deposit of Rs.1900/- was raised and since petitioner-Corporation is a public body, providing services on no profit no loss basis it was not expected to run Corporation with loss. Since order passed by District Forum, which was eventually affirmed by State Commission is an interim order, we find no good reason to disturb finding of State Commission and the revision petition accordingly is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, any finding recorded by fora below or by this Commission in this proceeding shall not prejudice the parties at trial.

DISMISSED