HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :
MR. MAYANK BANSAL
For the Respondent :
NEMO
Dated : 10 Aug 2010
ORDER
Heard Counsel for the Petitioner who states that the main grievance of the Petitioner before the fora below was that the representation filed by the Petitioner had not been disposed of. However, after going through the complaint, it is found that no relief was, in fact, sought by the Petitioner in relation to the said representation, if any, pending with the authorities nor any direction was sought from the fora below to dispose of the said representation. After filing the complaint, the Petitioner cannot turn around now and say that representation was kept pending and had not been decided. The complaint filed by the present Petitioner was, in fact, allowed by the District Forum and the District Forum directed refund of amount of Rs.3,89,818/- alongwith 6% interest from the date of deposit till realisation. This order was challenged by the Opposite Party before the State Commission. The State Commission in a well reasoned order set aside the order of the District Forum. Admittedly, the meter of the Complainant remained defective during November, 2000 to January, 2001 which is the peak season for the woollen industries. The Complainant/Petitioner claimed that the factory during the said period worked only for one shift. The Opposite Party had charged for the said period of November, 2000 to January, 2001 on the basis of electricity bills for corresponding months for the previous year. The State Commission in this set of facts held that it was incumbent upon the Complainant to prove the fact of less production of goods by the unit for the year November, 2000 to January, 2001 corresponding with the production of the previous year 1999-2000. The State Commission also found that no account books or sales tax assessment order or income tax return have been produced by the Complainant to substantiate its claim for less production due to recession in the market as well as reduction its income. The State Commission also noticed that merely by writing a word under protest does not absolve the Complainant not to pay the electricity bill issued by the Opposite Parties as per the consumption. The State Commission took note of the fact that winder season starts from the month of November till mid or end of February and it is a peak season when the woollen garments are manufactured by the company. In this view of the matter, the State Commission had allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint. For the reasoning recorded by the State Commission, which we accept, we do not find that any case has been made out for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as we do not find any jurisdictional error, illegality or material irregularity in the order of the State Commission. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER ......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
