NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2928/2012

SANTRO & 2 ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

MR. BHARAT SWAROOP SHARMA

28 Aug 2012

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 2928 OF 2012
 
(Against the Order dated 25/04/2012 in Appeal No. 59/2010 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. SANTRO & 2 ORS.
S/o Shri Jeeta Ram R/o Village Sanghan (Dera Kapoaor Singh) Tehsil
kaithal
Haryana
2. Rajesh Shri Kapoor Singh
R/o Village Sanghan (Dera Kapoaor Singh) Tehsil
kaithal
Haryana
3. Dalel Singh, S/o Shri Kapoor Singh
R/o Village Sanghan (Dera Kapoaor Singh) Tehsil
Kaithal
Haryana
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. UHBVNL
Through its Sub Diivisional Officer(Operation) Sub Urban, SUb Divisiion, UHBVNL
Kaithal
Haryana
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. BHARAT SWAROOP SHARMA
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 28 Aug 2012
ORDER

JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

Learned counsel for the petitioner present.  Arguments heard.  The complainants are Mrs. Santro w/o Kapoor Singh, since deceased, complainant No. 1, Shri Rajesh son of Kapoor Singh, complainant No. 2 and Dalel Singh son of Shri Kapoor Singh, complainant No. 3.  Shri Kapoor Singh, the husband of the complainant No. 1 and father of complainants No. 2 and 3 was having a tubewell electricity connection bearing No. SG-131, at his village in Dera Kapoor Singh.   He was paying the bills regularly.  It is alleged that Kapoor Singh died due to electrocution while he was giving bath to his buffaloes.  Post Mortem report was also conducted in civil hospital, Kaithal.  Post Mortem report has not been submitted before us.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that intimation was given to the respondent.  When we enquired from learned counsel for the petitioner about the intimation, he admitted that no such intimation was given to the respondent till today and only FIR was lodged.  As a matter of fact, the petitioner should have sent the intimation to the respondent immediately   so   that   they   would   have  appointed  investigator.  The investigator would have searched the case and submit the final report.  In absence of that, the case does not begin to jell.  The complainants are still to pay Rs.59,642/-.  Though it was argued that the complainants are using and paying the bills.

Under the circumstances, no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent stands proved.

The revision petition has no merits and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

 

 
......................J
J.M. MALIK
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
VINAY KUMAR
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.