AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE District Forum as well as the State Commission came to the conclusion that the execution petition filed by the petitioner already stands satisfied. The State Commission in its judgment at para No.4, has observed, as under: - "In the execution application the opposite parties (Nigam ") has filed the compliance report dated 11.05.2010 by informing that the new meter has been installed and on the basis of actual consumption of six months the account of the complainant overhauled and no rent is being charged. The meter rent charged from March, 2001 to March 2009, i.e. Rs.612/- has been adjusted and the same was credited in the bill, dated 25.05.2010 ".
AGGRIEVED by that order, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition. He appeared in person and was heard for a considerable time. He submitted that he was not heard at all by the courts below and particularly, para No.9 of his execution petition moved under Section 27 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was not decided. The said para is reproduced as below:- "That the respondents have failed or omitted to comply with the order dated 17.05.2006 made by the Hon ''ble District Forum regarding not charging meter rent in this case and as such they shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month but which may extend to three years, or with fine which shall not be less than two thousand rupees but which may extend to ten thousand rupees, or with both, under Section 27(1) of the C.P. Act, 1986 ".
Since the order of District Forum has been fully complied with, therefore, all these arguments pale into insignificance. The revision petition being meritless, is therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.