NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/3443/2009

UTTAR HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

JOGINDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ARUNABH CHOWDHURY

23 Oct 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 10 Sep 2009

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/3443/2009
(Against the Order dated 20/01/2009 in Appeal No. 1381/2004 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. UTTAR HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.Sub Divisional office OP. Uttar Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. Naraingarh Ambala Haryana ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. JOGINDER SINGHS/o. Sh. Baru Ram . R/o. Village. Bhukri Tehsil Narainagarh District. Ambala Haryana ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :MR. ARUNABH CHOWDHURY
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 23 Oct 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 revision petition has been filed with a delay of 127 days, which is over and above, the statutory period of 90 days given for filing the revision petition. Consumer Fora are required to decide the complaint within 90 days of its filing where no evidence is required to be taken and in 150 days where evidence is to be taken. Delay of 127 days, which is over and above the statutory period of 90 days given for filing the revision petition cannot be condoned without sufficient cause being shown. We are not satisfied with the cause shown. The only reason given for the delay is that the file was moving from table to table, which according to us does not constitute a sufficient cause. Dismissed on the ground of delay. 
 

         Otherwise, also we find no merit in this revision petition. The respondent had applied for an electricity connection in 1993. The fora below have recorded a finding that persons who had applied subsequent to the respondent had been given connection. This finding is a finding of fact, which cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Dismissed.



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