NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/4022/2009

JOGINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE SECRETARY PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

11 May 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 4022 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 29/01/2009 in Appeal No. 568/2003 of the State Commission Punjab)
1. JOGINDER SINGH ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. THE SECRETARY PUNJAB STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 11 May 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.

 

          No one appears for petitioner even on second call. It shows reluctance of petitioner to prosecute the proceedings and revision petition merits dismissal on this score alone. However, merit of the case has been considered.
          In an inspection that was carried by officials of respondents-board on 24.07.2001 petitioner was found committing theft of electric energy by tapping one of the wire at one phase directly. Electricity connection was accordingly disconnected and demand for Rs.16,262/- was raised against petitioner, which was followed by deposit. Petitioner, however, filing complaint sought refund of deposit made by him. Since he could not get desired relief, door of consumer fora was knocked filing complaint. District Forum on
-2-
 
evaluation of pleadings of parties having accepted complaint granted substantial relief to petitioner. In appeal, however, finding of District Forum was reversed dismissing complaint. Grievance of petitioner was that since inspection note did not bear endorsement of petitioner, said inspection was not credible.  State Commission has gone into this aspect of matter and found that after petitioner refused to sign inspection note, no option was available to inspection team. Finding of State Commission cannot be said to be without merit and this revision petition even on merit is dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER