SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

KRISHNAMURTHY B. SANGANNAVAR, DIVYASHREE. M
Assistant Executive Engineer – Appellant
Versus
Panpanna – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellants:H.V Devaraju, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ashok R Kalyana Shetty, Advocate

ORDER

Krishnamurthy B. Sangannavar, Presiding Member.—This is an Appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by OPs aggrieved by the Order dated 01.09.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No.92/2021 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bagalkot (for short, the District Commission).

2. The Parties to this Appeal will be referred to as the rank assigned to them by the District Commission

3. The Commission examined the impugned order, grounds of Appeal, Appeal papers and heard learned counsels. Now the point that arises for consideration of this Commission would be:

Whether impugned order dated 01.09.2022 passed in CC No.92/2021 does call any interference for the grounds set out in the Appeal Memorandum?

4. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant before the DCDRC would be stated as follows:

The complainant is the owner of the land bearing Re-survey No.280/4B(now-R.S No.280/5) to an extent of 3 Acre 19 guntas and this land is irrigated through bore-well with submersible pump set having drip pipelines and in the said land, he had availed electric service from OP to generate his submersible pump set with mono block pump set to the bore-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top