NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2059/2010

KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

KHADEEJA - Opp.Party(s)

MR. M.T. GEORGE

16 Sep 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2059 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 28/01/2010 in Appeal No. 24/2010 of the State Commission Kerala)
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.Viaidhuthi Bhavan, PattomTrivandrumKerala2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEERElectrical Section, Kerala State Electricity Board, Kumbala, Kasargod TalukKasargodKerala ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. KHADEEJAResiding at Soorambail Edanad, Edanad P.O., Kasargod TalukKasargodKerala ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 16 Sep 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.

Heard Counsel for the petitioner. She has produced before us Priority Register which contains the list of connections to be given on priority basis. This list also includes cases where connection is not to be given on priority. The revision has been filed against the concurrent findings of two fora below. The District Forum after taking into consideration, the plea of the present petitioner that the connection was not provided since priority had not reached, had directed the petitioner to provide electric connection on or before 31.12.2009 failing which the present petitioner was directed to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/-. There is no condition in the said order regarding any payment by the complainant subject to which connection was to be provided. Therefore, the petitioner was required to comply with the said order and even if any, dues towards the said connection were not paid, a bill could be sent to the complainant. The petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. Before the State Commission, the petitioner was not able to produce any authority to substantiate its contention that the persons who applied for electric connection in the above category before the complainant had not been provided with electric connection. The connection was provided only on 20.1.2010 i.e. to say after the deadline fixed by the District Forum. We have also scrutinized the priority list filed before us and we are not satisfied with the maintenance of the said priority list since from the said priority list, it cannot be made out what was the number of the complainant for the purpose of release of the connection. The petitioner has not placed any data as such separately showing who were the consumers who had not yet been provided the connection before the complainant. Be that as it may, in the light of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner was bound to comply with the said order prior to 31.12.2009 and on failure to comply the said order the damages were to be paid by the petitioner. The connection was given only on 20.1.2010. In this view of the matter, 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 orders of fora below. The revision is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.


......................JR.K. BATTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................VINAY KUMARMEMBER