NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2716/2010

SDO (OP) UHBVN & ORS. - Complainant(s)

Versus

N.K. GOEL - Opp.Party(s)

M/S. JURISPERITUS

06 Aug 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2716 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 10/06/2010 in Appeal No. 734/2010 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. SDO (OP) UHBVN & ORS.Model TownYamuna NagarHaryana2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, UHBVNL LTD.Sector-6Yamuna NagarHaryana3. THE CHAIRMAN, UHBVNL LTD.Sector-6Shakti BhawanHaryana ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. N.K. GOELR/o. H. No. 46-B, Chopra Garden, Yamuna Nagar, Teshil JagadhariYamuna NagarHaryana ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENT
For the Petitioner :Mr. Vikas, ADv. for M/S. JURISPERITUS, Advocate
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 06 Aug 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.

Respondent/complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum seeking quashing of the demand notice No.1122 dated 13.12.2007 issued by the petitioner wherein the sum of Rs.1,46,560/- was demanded as penalty for committing theft of energy and another demand notice No.1123 dated 13.12.2007 wherein the sum of Rs.48,000/- was demanded by the petitioner on account of

 

-2-

compounding the offence of theft of energy against the electricity connection.  The District Forum allowed the complaint and quashed the demand notice No.1122 and 1123 dated 13.12.2007 holding that the petitioner had failed to prove that the respondent had committed theft of energy.

          Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which has been dismissed by the impugned order.  The State Commission has reiterated the view taken by the District Forum that the petitioner had failed to prove the charge of theft of energy against the respondent. 

The District Forum as well as the State Commission have observed in their order that the petitioner had failed to file affidavit of any member of the checking party; that the petitioner had also failed to put on record the videography which is mandatory to be taken in terms of para 9 of sale circular No.U-54/2007.

I agree with the view taken by the fora below.  The petitioner had failed to prove that there was theft of energy as the petitioner did


-3-

not file any affidavit of any member of the checking party or the videography which is required to be taken mandatorily under para 9 of Sale Circular No.U-54/2007.  No merits.  Dismissed.



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT