STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 03.03.2025 Date of decision : 05.03.2025

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Civil Lines, Sub Division, Powercom, District Hoshiarpur, through its SDO.

2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., City Division, District Hoshiarpur, through its XEN.

3. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., through its Chairman, The Mall, Patiala.

….Appellants/OPs Versus Sahil Kumar Menra, aged 31 years, son of Sh. Dinesh Kumar Menra, Resident of House No.74/430, Mount Avenue, Block-D, near Satnam Hospital, Hoshiarpur.

….Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshiarpur.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Ms. Simarjot Kaur, Member Mr. Vishav Kant Garg, Member

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Present:-

For the Appellants : Mrs. Swatantar Kapoor, Advocate JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT Appellants/OPs i.e. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd.

and others have filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hoshiarpur (in short, “the District Commission”), whereby the Complaint filed by the Respondent/Complainant had been partly allowed by issuing directions to the Appellants to withdraw the excessive bill for the period w.e.f. 22.08.2014 to 01.11.2020 of

11,28,353/- (outstanding+interest+surcharge) and to issue fresh bill ₹

of subsequent period and also to pay an amount of 10,000/- towards ₹

lumpsum compensation and litigation expenses within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the awarded amount was payable along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order till its realization. Further direction was issued to adjust the amount deposited, if any, in the bill of the subsequent period.

2. There is a delay of 258 days in filing of the Appeal. MA No.251 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of said delay, which is supported by an affidavit.

3. Mrs. Swatantar Kapoor, learned Counsel for the Appellants/OPs has submitted that the certified copy of the order dated 09.04.2024 passed by the District Commission was prepared on

23.04.2024 and it was delivered to the Appellants on 29.04.2024. Thereafter, it was sent by the SDO, Civil Lines to the XEN Office on 30.04.2024, who had further forwarded the same to the Legal Cell on 20.06.2024. The Legal Cell, Patiala had recommended to file the Appeal vide letter dated 25.06.2024 and thereafter by seeking a number of clarifications, the Counsel was appointed vide letter dated 09.01.2025. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the delay in filing the Appeal was not intentional or deliberate but it was due to the bonafide reasons beyond the control of the Appellants and as such the delay in filing the Appeal be condoned.

4. We have heard the oral arguments raised by learned Counsel for the Appellants. We have also carefully perused the impugned order passed by the District Commission and all other relevant documents available on the file.

5. The main argument raised by the Appellants for condonation of delay is that the certified copy of the impugned order was delivered to the Appellants on 29.04.2024. Thereafter, the file kept on moving from one office to other for taking certain clarifications/approvals and as such the delay of 258 days had occurred in filing of the Appeal. However, the delay in filing of the Appeal has not been properly explained. Neither the justified reasons are there to explain the huge delay nor any efforts have been made to give any convincing reasoning. Vague explanation has given in the Application