ORAL

                STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                               UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW          

                                  REVISION NO. R/34/2019

                      (Against the order dated 08-04-2019 in Complaint Case No.

                         157/2017 of the District Consumer Forum, Azamgarh )

Mohd. Arif, S/o Mustak Ahmad

R/o Mohalla Pura Rani

Galla Mandi, Mubarakpur

Post Mubarakpur

District Azamgarh, U.P. 

                                                                                      ...Revisionist

                                                     Vs.

Poorvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Through Executive Engineer

Vidyut Vitran Khand-I

Azamgarh, U.P. 276001 

                                                                                      ...Opposite party

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT

For the Revisionist         :   Mr. Paras Nath Tiwari, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party   :  

Dated :  03-05-2019

                                                  ORDER

      MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT 

        Sri Paras Nath Tiwari, learned Counsel for the revisionist appeared.

        Heard learned Counsel for the revisionist and perused order dated 08-04-2019 passed by District Consumer Forum, Azamgarh in Complaint Case No. 157/2017 Mohd. Arif V/s Poorvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited. Vide impugned order the District Consumer Forum has rejected application moved by revisionist under Section 13(3B) of the Consumer Protection Act for interim relief.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the revisionist that the revisionist has already deposited Rs.1,22,000/- out of Rs.2,03,389/- which has been shown outstanding against him in the bill dated 05-11-2016 but the learned Counsel for the revisionist has shown only one payment receipt dated 11-11-2016 whereby Rs.20,000/- has been deposited after bill dated 05-11-2016. Considering the arrear shown in

:2:

bill it cannot be said that the impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum is against law. 

In view of above I find no sufficient ground for interference in impugned order passed by District Consumer Forum.

Revision petition is dismissed. However, the District Consumer Forum is directed to expedite disposal of complaint and to make endeavour to decide the complaint within three months from the date on which certified copy of this order is produced.

Let copy of this order be made available to the parties positively within 15 days as per rules.

                                                                ( JUSTICE A H KHAN )

                                                                                 PRESIDENT

            Pnt.