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 0, Cited by 1]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Rajendra Namdeo Patil on 9 September, 2014

                                 1     RP No.44/2014


   MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI CIRCUIT BENCH AT
               AURANGABAD.

                                     Date of filing : 26/08/2014
                                     Date of order : 09/09/2014

REVISION PETITION No          : 44 of 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO : 96 OF 2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: JALGAON.

1.   Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd
     Opponent & M Division Girad road, Pachora,
     Through its Executive Engineer.

2.   Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd
     Bhadgaon Tq Bhadgaon Dist. Jalgaon,
     Through its Assistant Engineer.

3.   Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd
     Bhadgaon Tq.Bhadgaon Dist. Jalgaon,
     Through its Junior Engineer.         REVISION PETITIONERS

          VERSUS

Shri.Rajendra Namdeo Patil
R/o.Wadgaon (Bk) (Satiche)
Tq.Bhadgaon Dist. Jalgaon.                      RESPONDENT

Coram     : Mrs.Uma Bora, Hon'ble Presiding Member.

ORALORDER Per. Mrs. Uma Bora, Hon'ble Presiding Member.

1. Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale appeared for the revision petitioner. Revision petitioner is challenged the order passed by the Dist. Consumer Forum on 17/07/2014 proceeding ex-parte against 1 RP No.44/2014 revision petitioner. It is submitted by Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale that in fact the petitioner approached to Dist. Consumer Forum in the afternoon but it was revealed that the Dist. Consumer Forum has passed ex-parte order at 11.00 a.m. only. As Dist. Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to set aside its own order. Revision petitioner required to approach the State Commission. It is submitted by Adv.Shri.Tandale that written version is ready and revision petitioner is filing the written version on the fixed date i.e. 10/09/2014 before the Dist. Consumer Forum. Hence, revision petition be allowed.

2. In my view, in the interest of the justice, revision petitioner is to afford the opportunity of fair hearing. As Dist. Consumer Forum has no power to set aside its own order, Revision petitioner approached to State Commission. Revision petitioner is ready with written version. By keeping in view of natural justice I am allowing the revision petition directing revision petitioner to deposit Rs 1000/- in the "Legal Aid Account" of this Commission. Petition to file written version on 10/09/2014 before the Dist. Consumer Forum.

Sd/-

Hon'ble Mrs.Uma Bora Presiding Member A.H.Patil Steno H.G. 1 RP No.44/2014