NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION No. 1003 OF 2011
(From the order dated 30.11.2010 in First Appeal No.888 of 2005 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh)
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited (PSPCL)
The Mall, Patiala
Punjab
2. Assistant Executive Engineer
Suburban Dirba Sub Division Petitioners
PSPCL
District Sangrur, Punjab
versus
Gurpiar Singh
Son of Babu Singh
Dhandoli Kalan Respondent
P.O. Janal, Tehsil Sunam
District Sangrur, Punjab
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR.ANUPAM DASGUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioners Mr. Jayant K. Sud, Advocate
Pronounced on 21st May, 2012
ORDER
ANUPAM DASGUPTA
This revision petition challenges the order dated 30.11.2010 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, “the State Commission”) in First Appeal no. 888 of 2005. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner with cost of Rs.2,500/- payable to the respondent. The petitioner’s appeal before the State Commission was from the order dated 23.05.2005 of the District Consumer DisputesRedressal Forum, Sangrur (in short, “the District Forum”).
2(i) The respondent in this petition was the complainant before the District Forum with the allegation of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the petitioner in implementing a scheme started by the petitioner in July 1998 under which a farmer could get electricity connection for irrigation on priority by depositing the requisite amount with the Punjab State Electricity Board (predecessor of the present petitioner) towards the cost of high tension electric line.
(ii) The respondent/complainant contended that though he had deposited the requisite sum of Rs.3,360/-on 07.12.1998, he had not been given the electricity connection for his tube well and yet persons who had applied under the same scheme after him had been given such connections. The petitioners opposed the complaint mainly on the ground that the scheme, not being viable, had been discontinued with effect from 17.03.1999.
(iii) On consideration of the pleadings and evidence, the District Forum allowed the complaint partly and directed the opposite party (OP)/ petitioner:
“……………………………... to issue to the complainant a demand notice specifying the requirements if any to be made by him and on his compliance of the demand notice, release the tube well electric connection in his favour. They shall also pay to the complainant a composite sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation and litigation expenses. The order be complied with within one month of the communication excluding then time taken by the complainant to complete the requirement of the demand notice”.
3. It was against this order that the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission which, in turn, passed the order dated 30.11.2010 which is under challenge in this revision petition.
4. A similar revision petition (no. 3387 of 2010) was filed by the same petitioner which was considered by a coordinate Bench of this Commission. By its order dated 20.07.2011, this Commission gave the following directions to the petitioner:
“Having considered the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order be set aside/modified to the extent that on making an application and completing formalities and making the payment of the requisite amount (after adjusting the sum of Rs.3,360/- already deposited with interest @ 12% per annum with effect from 15.12.1998 till the date of application plus Rs.10,000/- to be paid under these orders), the petitioner shall release the electric connection to the complainant-respondent within a period of three months from the date of application”.
5. The facts and circumstances of the case involved in this petition are almost identical with those in revision petition no. 3387 of 2010 mentioned above. It will be, therefore, in the interest of justice to also dispose of this revision petition on similar lines.
6. As a result, the revision petition is disposed of by directing the petitioner to inform the respondent/complainant regarding the formalities to be completed and the amount to be deposited for the electricity connection after deducting the sum of Rs.3,360/- already deposited by the latter with the petitioners along with interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit (07.12.1998) till the date of issue of the letter plus Rs.5,000/- awarded by the District Forum (it is noticed in this context that the cost of Rs.2,500/- ordered by the State Commission has been paid to respondent/complainant in view of the State Commission’s direction in paragraph 20 of its order). This letter shall be issued by the petitioners within four weeks of the date of this order. In this letter, the petitioners shall also advise the respondent/complainant regarding the procedure to remit the requisite amount (after adjustment as above) and to complete the necessary formalities for releasing the electricity connection in question. The electricity connection shall be made available to the respondent/complainant within four months of his making the requisite payment and completing the formalities.
Sd/-
……………………………………..
[ Anupam Dasgupta ]
satish
