NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3274/2010

ASHWANI KUMAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL & ORS. - Opp.Party(s)

MR. G.D. GUPTA

03 Dec 2010

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
 
REVISION PETITION NO. 3274 OF 2010
 
(Against the Order dated 07/05/2010 in Appeal No. 2848/2003 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. ASHWANI KUMAR
Resident of Pahari Gate, Chhachhrauli
Yamuna Nagar
Haryana
...........Petitioner(s)
Versus 
1. UHBVNL & ORS.
Through its Chairman, Shakti Bhawan
Panchkula
Haryana
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
UHBVNL
Yamuna Nagar
Haryana
3. SDO, OP. SUB-DIVISION
UHBVNL, Chhachhrauli
Yamuna Nagar
Haryana
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :MR. G.D. GUPTA
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 03 Dec 2010
ORDER

Challenge in these proceedings is to the order dated 7.5.2010 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, he State Commission in first appeal No. 2848 of 2003. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by opposite party-Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as HBVNL against the order dated 21.10.2003 passed by District Consumer Forum, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri whereby the complaint of the present petitioner seeking to quash the bill/demand notice of Rs.47015/- was accepted. In the appeal, the State Commission going by the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular, noting that the concerned officer of the electricity Nigam, who visited the site found that the petitioner was unauthorisedly extracting energy by bypassing the electric meter and in this way he committed theft of electric energy, allowed the appeal and set aside the order. We have heard Mr. G. D. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered his submissions. He seeks to challenge the order passed by the State Commission primarily on the -3- ground that the same is not based on correct and proper appreciation of facts as also the evidence because according to him, the petitioner was coerced to sign the inspection memo prepared by the officer of the electricity Nigam. He claims that the petitioner never used any unauthorized method of extracting electricity. His next submission is that inspection was not made in presence of any respectable witness or any resident of the locality and, therefore, no reliance should be placed on the report prepared by the said officer. We have noted the submission only to be rejected because in our view, the factum of unauthorized extraction of energy was fully established from the material brought on record and the same cannot be discarded on certain technical assumptions. We see no reason to interfere with the well reasoned order of the State Commission and therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

 
......................J
R.C. JAIN
PRESIDING MEMBER
......................
ANUPAM DASGUPTA
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.