NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2263/2010

MOHINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

IN PERSON

09 Sep 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2263 OF 2010
(Against the Order dated 11/05/2009 in Appeal No. 1197/2007 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. MOHINDER SINGHVillage Kharak Gadian, Tehsil PilukheraJindHaryana ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. UHBVNLThrough Executive Engineer SafidonSafidonPunjab2. EXECUTIVE ENGINEERUttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam SafidonJindHayana ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. GUPTA ,PRESIDING MEMBERHON'BLE MR. S.K. NAIK ,MEMBER
For the Petitioner :IN PERSON
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 09 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.

Petitioner was the complainant. He filed complaint alleging that the wheat crop sown by him in 4 acres of land was damaged in a fire which had taken place on account of sparking in the electric wires passing over his fields. He claimed compensation of Rs.40,000/-. Respondent electricity department contested the complaint. By the order dated 6.3.2007, the complaint was allowed with direction to the respondent to pay amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. In case this amount was not paid within two months it has to carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of filing of -2- complaint. Against District Forum’s order the respondent filed appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission by the order dated 10.5.2009. Petitioner did not file any appeal against the forum’s order. In the application dated 24.6.2010 sent by the petitioner which has been registered as revision petition, the prayer made is that as he has not been paid the compensation the respondent be directed to pay it. Petitioner also claims enhancement in compensation. He says that he has been paid only Rs.10,000/- by the respondent. Since the petitioner had not filed any appeal against the said order of District Forum this revision petition for enhancement of compensation is not legally maintainable. In case the interest amount has not been paid by the respondent, the remedy open to the petitioner is to file execution application before the concerned District Forum for recovery thereof. With this observation, the revision petition is disposed of. Dasti


......................JK.S. GUPTAPRESIDING MEMBER
......................S.K. NAIKMEMBER