NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3039/2005

SMT. RAM LUBHAI AGGARWAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE SECRETARY FINANCE TO GOVERNMENT AND ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

SMT. KAWALJIT KOCHAR

03 Sep 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 02 Dec 2005

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/3039/2005
(Against the Order dated 30/09/2005 in Appeal No. 149/2005 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
1. SMT. RAM LUBHAI AGGARWALHOUSE NO.3384 SECTOR 19-D CHANDIGARH ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. THE SECRETARY FINANCE TO GOVERNMENT AND ORS.U.T. ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT SECTOR 9 CHANDIGARH ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :Mr. Meet Malhgotra, adv. for SMT. KAWALJIT KOCHAR, Advocate
For the Respondent :MS. VIMLA SINHA

Dated : 03 Sep 2009
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.

           This order shall dispose of Revision Petition No.848 of 2006 and Revision Petition 3039 of 2005.  Revision Petition 848/2006          has been filed by the Finance Secretary to Government UT Electricity

-2-

Department & Ors. which were opposite parties before the District Forum and Revision Petition 3039/2005 has been filed by Smt. Ram Lubhai Aggarwal, the complainant.  District Forum by the impugned order had directed the UT Electricity Department not to charge the complainant minimum charges from 30.4.2000 till the restoration of the connection on 05.4.2004. 

Against the order passed by the District Forum, both the complainant as well as the opposite party filed cross appeals.  The appeal filed by the UT Electricity Department was dismissed on the ground of ‘Delay’ of 44 days and the appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed on merits as there was no delay in the said appeal. 

We are inclined to condone the delay of 44 days in the filing the appeal, as in our opinion, UT Electricity Board had shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 44 days.  Accordingly, the order passed by the State Commission in the appeal No. 195/2005 filed by Finance Secretary to Govt. UT Electricity Board is set aside and case is remitted back to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law.

-3-

          Though, the appeal No. 149/2005 filed by the complainant was dismissed on merits, but as we are setting aside the order passed by the State Commission in the appeal filed by UT Electricity Board, we set aside the order in this appeal as well and remand the case to the State Commission for a fresh decision in accordance with law.  We have done this to enable the State Commission to pass a composite order in both the appeals as they were against the same order. 

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 04.11.2009.

            Since it is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeals filed by the parties as expeditiously, and preferably within four months from the date of appearance.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER