Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 8]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Smt. Geeta Gupta Wife Of Shri Harish ... vs Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State ... on 9 October, 2009

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
         S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.

                        Revision Petition No.62 of 2009

                                        Date of institution : 18.8.2009
                                        Date of decision    : 9.10.2009

Smt. Geeta Gupta wife of Shri Harish Kumar, resident of Plot No.17, Near Market

Committee Office, Circular Road, Gilwali Gate, Amritsar also owner of property

having Plot No.151, Abadi Sher Singh, Tarn Taran Road, Chhattiwind Gate,

Amritsar.

                                                                .......Petitioner
                                     Versus

Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Circle Chattiwind Gate,

Amritsar.

                                                               ......Respondents


                            Revision Petition against the order dated 28.7.2009
                            of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
                            Forum, Amritsar.
Before :-

      Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
             Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.

Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member.

Present :-

For the petitioner : Shri Gurpreet Singh, Advocate for Shri Vivek Salathia, Advocate.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The petitioner had filed the consumer complaint in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short "District Forum") challenging the demand notice. The respondents appeared in the learned District Forum and contested the case. The petitioner filed an application for summoning of the officials of the respondents with record. The said application was dismissed by the learned District Forum vide order dated 28.7.2009.

2. Hence the petition.

Revision Petition No.62 of 2009. 2

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the said record was very essential for just decision of the complaint filed by the petitioner. Hence it was prayed that the petition be accepted and the impugned order dated 28.7.2009 be set aside.

4. Considered.

5. The proceedings before the District Forum are summary in nature. The consumer complaints are decided on the basis of the affidavits/documents.

6. The long procedure of summoning of the officials with record, examination and cross-examination of witnesses, production of expert witnesses or summoning of record from other Departments are detailed proceedings which are adopted in the civil court.

7. If this procedure of summoning of officials with record is adopted by the District Forum, the object and the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 would be defeated. If the petitioner thinks that summoning of record is very essential for just decision of the complaint, she should resort to civil proceedings before the civil court after the withdrawal of the complaint before the District Forum.

8. There is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed in limine.



                                                (JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
                                                      PRESIDENT




                                        (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.])
                                                    MEMBER




October 9, 2009                                  (PIARE LAL GARG)
Bansal                                                MEMBER
 Revision Petition No.62 of 2009.   3