Case nº Revision Petition No. 159 of 2013 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, April 29, 2014 (case Sri Chakradhar Sahoo Vs Khetramohan Parida (Dead) through its Legal heirs, S.D.O. (Comm.) (Electrical) and Jr. Manager (Elect.))

JudgeFor Appellant: Mr. Soimyajit Pani, Advocate and For Respondents: Ms. Swati Bhushan Sharma, Advocate for Respondent - 1
PresidentDr. B.C. Gupta, (Presiding Member)
Resolution DateApril 29, 2014
Issuing OrganizationNational Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


Dr. B.C. Gupta, (Presiding Member)

  1. This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 1.11.2012, passed by the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 23/2012, "Sri Chakradhar Sahoo versus Khetramohan Parida", vide which, while dismissing appeal, the order dated 27.12.2011, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Khurda, dismissing the consumer complaint no. 526/2009, was upheld.

  2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant Sri Chakradhar Sahoo filed consumer complaint no. 526/2009, saying that he was the owner of a piece of land in Khata No. 42, Mauza Bhubaneswar, Sahar Unit No. 9, Bhoi Nagar and a single storey residential house had been constructed on the said property where the complainant was residing with his family. He had been paying municipal taxes and land revenue regularly. There was an electric connection provided by the Orissa State Electricity Board (OSEB) vide consumer no. 11.1.81, corresponding to new account no. 01234186 for 1 KW in his name and he used to pay the electricity bill regularly. There was an adjoining piece of waste land near the residential building, upon which, the complainant had constructed three shop-rooms for business purposes for which a separate electric connection under commercial category vide consumer no. 11.1.81/1, corresponding to account no. 01375974 for 1 KW had been obtained and the complainant used to pay the bills for that connection also. It is further stated in the complaint that OP 1 was a tenant in shop room no. 1 on monthly rental basis. The son of OP 1 cultivated family relations with the complainant and taking advantage of the same, gave a proposal to purchase land and building of the complainant. The complainant got registered sale deed no. 868 dated 18.01.2008, executed in favour of OP 1, although the possession of land and building was not delivered to OP 1. Thereafter, since there was violation of the contractual agreement between the parties, the complainant made a deed of cancellation on 31.12.2008, vide registered document No. 19986. However, civil litigation regarding the property in question was pending between the parties. The complainant has alleged that when sale deed no. 868 dated 18.01.2008 was executed between the parties, OP 1, made a representation to OP 2, who is officer of the Electricity...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT