Appeal Nos. 343 of 2006 and 102 of 2007. Case: 1. Virendra Sahai Bisaria, 2. Aporva Sahkari Avas Samiti Vs 1. Aporva Sahkari Avas Samiti, 2. Virendra Sahai Bisaria. Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Case NumberAppeal Nos. 343 of 2006 and 102 of 2007
Party Name1. Virendra Sahai Bisaria, 2. Aporva Sahkari Avas Samiti Vs 1. Aporva Sahkari Avas Samiti, 2. Virendra Sahai Bisaria
JudgesVirendra Singh, J. (President) and A.K. Bose, Member
IssueConsumer Law
CitationI (2014) CPJ 275 (UP)
Judgement DateOctober 08, 2013
CourtUttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Virendra Singh, J. (President)

  1. Both the aforesaid appeals have been filed by both the parties separately against the judgment and order dated 9.11.2005 passed by the learned District Consumer Forum-II, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 840/2002, Sri Virendra Sahai Bisaria v. Aporva Sahkari Avas Samiti, in which the learned District Consumer Forum directed to the opposite party/Aporva Sahkari Avas Samiti to construct the metallic road in the colony and to extend the electricity line to facilitate the electricity supply to the complainant. A sum of Rs. 50,000 is also awarded as compensation to the complainant along with a sum of Rs. 1,000 towards litigation charges. Since both the aforesaid appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order, therefore, both the aforesaid appeals have been taken for decision conjointly.

  2. We have heard Mr. V.S. Bisaria, learned Counsel for himself the complainant and Mr. Anurag Srivastava, learned Counsel for the opposite party.

  3. Briefly stated the facts in dispute in between the parties are that the complainant was allotted a corner Plot No. 33 by the opposite party. The main grievance of the complainant was that the opposite party had not provided electricity so as to facilitate the complainant during the course of construction and in the absence of the Electricity L.T. Line, the complainant had to hire the services of a generator and paid its rent @ Rs. 500 per day from May 4, 2001 to September 30, 2001. The opposite party had not constructed roads in the colony is also remained the grievance of the complainant before the District Consumer Forum against the opposite party.

  4. The opposite party thereby contesting the complaint before the District Consumer Forum filed the written statement stating therein that it was the responsibility of either the Government or the local authority to construct the road and so far as the provision for streetlight is concerned, the opposite party had provided the electricity as per its commitment.

  5. The District Consumer Forum found the opposite party deficient in service to the complainant stating that the opposite party did not construct the roads in the colony and failed to erect electricity line to provide the electricity to the complainant and thus the District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint with this direction to the opposite party to construct the metallic road in the colony and to extend the electricity line to facilitate the electricity supply to the complainant. A sum of Rs. 50,000 is also awarded as compensation to the complainant from the opposite party and a sum of Rs. 1,000 towards the litigation charges are also allowed to the complainant to be paid by the opposite party.

  6. Both the parties feeling aggrieved came before this Commission against the judgment of the District Consumer Forum by way of Appeal No. 343/2006 filed by the complainant and by way of Appeal No. 102/2007 filed by the opposite party. The complainant by way of this appeal demanded a sum of Rs. 75,000 instead of Rs. 50,000 as compensation towards the expenses incurred by him on electricity charges. The opposite party by way of its appeal assailed the entire award of compensation to the complainant.

  7. ...

To continue reading

Request your trial