NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
M/s. Gupta Electricals Pvt. Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Sampuran Kaur and Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.3728 of 2012
(Against the Order dated 29/02/2012 in Appeal No.1035/2009 & 1240/2012 of the State Commission Punjab)
Decided on 24.11.2020
Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(g) and 21 : [Consumer Protection Act, 2019—Section 2(11) and 58]—Electrical works—Installation of tubewall—Compensation for non-performance of works—As a matter of fact the work allotted to petitioner was not completed and consequently electricity connection was not released by the corporation—Admittedly application of complainant for installation of tubewall approved and registration fee deposited—District Forum directed petitioner to perform its part of contract and return excess amount charged i.e., Rs. 92,002/-—State Commission directed petitioner to pay Rs. 60,000/- as compensation to complainant—Plea of petitioner imputing refusal by one resident to allow electrical work to cross over his house, found not correct—Petitioner was found deficient in rendering services to the complainant and has not completed the work entrusted to it despite having taken Rs. 2,39,000/- from the complainant—Complainant suffered substantial mental agony, thus, compensation awarded by State Commission held not unjustified—However, order passed by Fora below directing the petitioner to refund a sum of Rs. 92,002/- set aside—Directions issued. (Paras 6 to 13)
Result: Petition disposed of
ORDER (ORAL)
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member.—No one has appeared for the complainant to argue this matter despite the scanned record and video link having been sent to her counsel. The Court Master also sent a message to the learned counsel for the complainant requesting him to join but he has not joined the proceedings. A perusal of the record would show that no one had appeared for the complainant on 28.08.2020, 14.10.2020 and 27.10.2020 which were the last three dates of hearing. The matter being very old matter, the revision petitions having been filed in the year 2012 and the consumer complaints having been filed in 2008, there is no justification for any further adjournment. I have therefore heard the learned counsel for the opposite parties in the consumer complaints, namely, Gupta Electricals Pvt. Ltd. and Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. and have considered the record.
2. The Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. hereinafter to as the ‘Corporation’, had floated a scheme under which tublewell connections could be installed by the farmers with the approval of the said Corporation . On the complainant applying for the tubewell connection under the said scheme known as “OYT Scheme” and depositing Rs.27500/- on 13.2.2008, an estimate was prepared by Jr. Engineer of the Corporation and according to the complainant, he was asked to contact the petitioner Gupta Electricals for purchasing the requisite equipment and installing the transformer, poles and providing wiring upto her field. The petitioner demanded an amount of Rs.249110/- from the complainant for the aforesaid work which included the cost of the transformer and other equipment, wires, poles etc. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.239100/- to the petitioner on 25.3.2008. The work awarded to the petitioner however, was not completed and consequently the electricity connection was not released by the Corporation. The complainant therefore approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking compensation etc.
3. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner as well as by the Corporation. In its reply, the Corporation admitted approval of the application of the complainant for installation of tubewell and deposit of registration fee as well as approval of the layout / sketch and bill of material. It was interalia stated in the written version of the Corporation that after approval of the sketch and bill of material, a refund order of Rs.25,000/- has to be issued to the farmer, after getting clearance from CEI Punjab, alongwith test report from the contractor, the connection is to be released. However, in this case the connection could not be released for want of requisite clearance certificate and test report.
4. In its written version the petitioner admitted the transaction with the complainant. It was alleged that as per the approved site plans, the transmission line was to cross the house of a resident of the village, namely, Tarsem Singh but he did not allow the transmission line to cross over his house and, therefore, the work could not be completed though the petitioner had erected poles and taken wiring upto the house of Tarsem Singh.
5. Another consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum with a grievance that the petitioner had charged extra amount of Rs.92802/- from her. The details of the said excess charges have been given in para 5 of the consumer complaint. This consumer complaint was also opposed by the petitioner which denied having charged excess amount from the complainant
6. The District Forum directed the petitioner to perform its part of contract and install the transformer. The Corporation was directed to release tubewell connection to the complainant. No compensation was awarded to the complainant though litigation cost quantified at Rs.2,000/- was awarded.
7. Vide its order dated 9.6.2009 passed in the second consumer complaint, the District Forum directed the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs. 92002/- to
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.