NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2570/2010

AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. SARVODYA SUITINGS LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. NANDWANI & ASSOCIATES

10 Nov 2010

ORDER

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

REVISION PETITION NO. 2570 OF 2010

(Against the Order dated 22/04/2010 in Appeal No. 233/2004 of the State Commission Rajasthan)

1. AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. Through Shushil Kumar, Executive Engineer (DD-I), AVVNL Bhilwara Rajasthan	...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. M/S. SARVODYA SUITINGS LTD. Regd. Office O5-12, Abhishek Textile Market, Gandhi Bazar Bhilwara Rajasthan	...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
	HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
	HON'BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER

For the Petitioner :

MR. K.L. NANDWANI, ADVOCATE

For the Respondent :

NEMO

Dated : 10 Nov 2010

ORDER

Notice was issued returnable for today and the respondent was informed that the matter may be disposed of finally at the admission stage. However, in spite of the fact that notice has been served on respondent and acknowledgment due has been received, no one has appeared on behalf of the respondent even on the second call. Heard Counsel for the petitioner on final disposal of the matter. The complainant had taken industrial connection for 200 KVA for the purpose of manufacturing Synthetic Fabrics as can be seen from the agreement dated 11.3.2002 between the parties which is at page 30 of the record. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the connection being for commercial purpose, the complainant cannot be considered to be a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner flowing from the agreement is well founded and the complainant is liable to be non-suited on this count alone. Besides this, it may be noted that the matter was referred to the Settlement Committee who had found the demand genuine on the basis of joint test report dated 28.5.2002. No objection was filed by the complainant/respondent against the said joint test report nor appeal was filed against the decision of Settlement Committee. In spite of that the complainant chose to file complaint before the District Forum. The District Forum reduced the payment from Rs. 88,010.89 to Rs.44,005/-. The demand notice was issued on the basis of Inspection report wherein it was found that there was extra withdrawal of electric power upto 252.80. This order of the District Forum was challenged by the present petitioner before the State Commission. Before the State Commission it was stated by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that in investigation it has been found that more than contact load had been consumed for which there was no dispute and when this fact was undisputed, the appellant was entitled to recover the amount which comes to Rs.88,010.89. It appears that the State Commission as a goodwill gesture directed the complainant to pay Rs. 60,000/- instead of Rs. 44,005/- ordered by the District Forum as against the claim of the petitioner to the tune of Rs.88,010.89. The State Commission also observed that the same will not be taken as precedent in other cases. We do not find any justification for the order of the District Forum or the State Commission in reducing the payment of Rs.88,010.89 which was based upon the material on record as also the investigation of the settlement committee. In view of this, the revision petition is allowed and orders of Fora below are hereby quashed and revision stands allowed with no order as to cost.

......................J

R.K. BATTA

PRESIDING MEMBER

......................

VINAY KUMAR

MEMBER