SANJAY MITTAL vs S.D.O. (OP), Division no. 2 U.H.B.V.N.L., Kurukshetra

THIS revision petition challenges the order dated 8th December 2010 of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (in short, ?the State Commission?) in First Appeal no. 1026 of 2005 filed by the respondent/opposite party.

THE petitioner/complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra (in short, ?the District Forum?) with the complaint of deficiency in service on the part of Uttari Haryana Bijali Vitaran Nigam Limited (UHBVNL) and its officers concerned in that the latter had made out a false case of theft of electricity against the complainant and illegally levied a penal charge of Rs.67,187/-, which the complainant was compelled to deposit under duress. THE complainant, therefore, prayed for refund of the said amount with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deposit as well as compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment and Rs.5,500/- as litigation cost. On consideration of the pleadings, evidence and documents brought on record the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties (OPs) to refund the amount of Rs.67,187/- to the complainant with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of deposit till payment and left the parties to bear their own cost.

Aggrieved, the respondent in this petition (one of the OPs) approached the State Commission in appeal. By its impugned order the State Commission remitted the matter back to the District Forum for fresh decision within three months after allowing the parties to produce proper evidence. It is against this order that the petitioner/complainant has come up with this revision petition.

I have heard Mr. Shish Pal Laler, learned counsel for the petitioner. The only point urged on behalf of the petitioner in the revision petition as well as during the hearing is that the same respondent had earlier filed a revision petition before the State Commission on the same grounds as in FA no. 1026 of 2005 but the respondent subsequently withdrew the revision petition, under order dated 01.12.2005 of the State Commission. In view of these submissions, counsel for the petitioner was allowed opportunities to file a copy of the relevant revision petition. On perusal of the revision petition (no. 186 of 2005) it is clear that the said petition was filed by the respondent before the State Commission against the show-cause notice dated 15.09.2005 issued by the District Forum. On the other hand, the order of the District Forum which was challenged by the respondent in FA no. 1026 of 2005 was dated 15.04.2005. It is, therefore, obvious that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is without any basis. Moreover, the impugned order of the State Commission does not cause any prejudice to the petitioner/complainant because it has merely remitted the complaint to the District Forum for fresh adjudication after allowing opportunities to both the parties to adduce evidence.

IN view of the foregoing discussion, the revision petition is dismissed in limine.