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

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 39735

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
HJ & COMPANY THROUGH ITS PARTNER JASKARAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
THE SUB- DIVISIONAL ENGINEER – Respondent
SC/4/RP/22/2023



Petitioner Advocates:SHREY GOEL ,Respondent Advocate:

##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

CHANDIGARH

REVISION PETITION NO. SC/4/RP/22/2023

HJ & COMPANY THROUGH ITS PARTNER JASKARAN SINGH

PRESENT ADDRESS - SCO NO. 1038-1039, SECTOR 22-B, CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

.......Petitioner(s)

Versus

THE SUB- DIVISIONAL ENGINEER

PRESENT ADDRESS - ELECTRICITY OPERATIONAL SUB DIVISION NO 1, SECTOR 23,

CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

RAJNISH KUMAR

PRESENT ADDRESS - HOUSE NO. 2512 SECTOR 19C CHANDIGARH,CHANDIGARH.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI , PRESIDENT

HON'BLE MR. PREETINDER SINGH , MEMBER

FOR THE PETITIONER:

SHREY GOEL (Advocate)

DATED: 19/12/2025

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Revision Petition No. : 22 of 2023

Date of Institution : 29.05.2023

Date of Decision : 19.12.2025

HJ & Company, SCO No. 1038-1039, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, through its Partner Jaskaran Singh S/o

Amarjit Singh. (Mob: 9889555300)

…Revision Petitioner/Complainant

V e r s u s

The Sub-Divisional Engineer, Electricity (Operational) Sub Division No. 1, Sector -23, Chandigarh.

##PAGE2##

…..Respondent

Rajnish Kumar S/o Yashpal Sharma R/o House no. 2512, Sector 19 C, Chandigarh.

...Proforma Respondent

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

Present:- Sh. Shrey Goel and Sh.Shvetanshu Goel, Advocate for the revision petitioner.

Sh.Nitin Bhasin, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Respondent No.2 proceeded against exparte vide order dated 15.09.2023.

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

This revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner/complainant challenging the order

dated 21.04.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (the

then District Forum, now referred to in short as the District Commission), vide which miscellaneous

application no.4 of 2019 filed by it for permission to appear and contest the main consumer complaint

bearing no.560 of 1997 was dismissed.

2. Before the District Commission, the applicant had made averments in the application that in the

Rs.

year 1998, the opposite party raised an electricity bill of approximately 1,98,000/- against the then

consumer, Sh. Rajnish Kumar, without any fault on his part. Aggrieved, Sh. Rajnish Kumar approached the

District Commission. Vide order dated 07.11.2007, the District Commission directed the Electrical Inspector

to decide the dispute within two months and stayed recovery of the subject amount. However, the dispute

was never adjudicated by the Electrical Inspector, UT, Chandigarh, and on 12.11.2012 it was stated during

arbitration proceedings that the matter was not maintainable in view of the District Commissions’ order

dated 07.11.2007 and had become time-barred. The opposite party neither challenged the said order nor

sought extension of time and continued to accept current electricity charges without the disputed amount.

Rs.

Despite this, the opposite party issued a bill dated 11.07.2014 reflecting a disputed amount of 2,54,368/-,

which was stayed by the District Commission. The then consumer deposited current charges as demanded,

Rs.

but the opposite party again raised a bill of 2,76,008/- in September 2014. Thereafter, Sh. Rajnish Kumar

approached the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF), which declined to decide the matter on the

ground that it was pending before the District Commission. Subsequently, Sh. Rajnish Kumar vacated the

premises and entered into a compromise deed dated 23.05.2017 with the owner, Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, who

##PAGE3##

agreed to bear all liabilities arising out of the pending complaint. An application under Section 151 CPC was

filed by Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, and vide order dated 23.02.2018, the matter was again referred to the CGRF.

However, the CGRF dismissed the complaint vide order dated 19.07.2018 for want of jurisdiction. The

present applicant purchased the premises on 14.07.2017 and claimed to have stepped into the shoes of the

previous consumer/owner, seeking restoration of the original complaint and adjudication of the subject bill

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 Back to top