National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd. vs Ramesh Kumar Rohilla on 24 June, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2609 OF 2014 (Against the Order dated 17/02/2014 in Appeal No. 270/2011 of the State Commission Delhi) 1. TATA POWER DELHI DISTRIBUTION LTD. THROUGH ITS MD/CEO, GRID SUB STATION BUILDING, HUDSON LINES KINGSWAY CAMP, DELHI - 110009 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. RAMESH KUMAR ROHILLA S/O LATE SH.SHISH RAM ROHILLA, 201, 2ND FLOOR,BHHANOT, BHAWAN, COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, AZADPUR DELHI - 110033 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : For R.K. Rohilla : In person For the Respondent : For M/s. TPDDL : Shri Manish Srivastava, Adv.
Dated : 24 Jun 2015 ORDER
Both these revision petitions arise out of single order passed by Learned State Commission and decided by a common order.
Both the parties have filed revision petitions against order dated 17.2.2014 passed in FA No. 270 of 2011 - R.K. Rohilla Vs. M/s. NDPL, by which it was observed that judgment dated 17.2.2014 passed in FA No. 271 of 2011- R.K. Rohilla Vs. M/s. NDPL, shall "mutatis mutandis" apply on this appeal.
Complainant/petitioner submitted that in FA No. 270 of 2011, some arguments were heard on 16.1.2014 on his application and matter was adjourned for rest of the arguments for 20.2.2014 but without hearing the parties, Learned State Commission vide impugned order dated 17.2.2014 disposed of this appeal, hence, impugned order be set aside and matter may be remanded back. Learned Counsel for the opposite party/respondent submitted that as other complaints filed by complainant were decided by State Commission in FA No. 271 of 2011 and single question was involved in FA No. 270 of 2011, order was passed and even if matter is to be remanded back, he has no objection.
As arguments were partly heard on 16.1.2014 and matter was adjourned for rest of the arguments on 20.2.2014, there was no occasion for Learned State Commission to decide this appeal on 17.2.2014 in the light of judgment dated 17.2.2014 in FA No. 271 of 2011- R.K. Rohilla Vs. M/s. NDPL, without hearing rest of the arguments. In such circumstances, impugned order is liable to set aside and both the revision petitions are to be allowed.
Consequently, RP No. 2355 of 2014- R.K. Rohilla Vs. M/s. TPDDL and RP No. 2609 of 2014- M/s. TPDDL Vs. R.K. Rohilla, are allowed and impugned order dated 17.2.2014 to the extent of disposal of FA No. 270 of 2011- R.K. Rohilla Vs. M/s. NDPL, is set aside and matter is remanded back to Learned State Commission to decide application dated 8.8.2012 filed by the complainant u/s 25-27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as well as to decide appeal on merits after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.
Parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 3.8.2015.
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER