STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR -37 A, CHANDIGARH Date of Institution : 26.07.2021 Date of Decision : 30.11.2022 Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Mudki, District Ferozepur, through its authorized signatory. PIN Code:- 142060.

…..Appellant/ Opposite Party Versus Inderjit Singh son of Darbara Singh, aged 54 years, resident of Village Bhaloor, Tehsil Baghapurana, District Moga, Pin Code

142038, Mobile No.98552-02160.

…..Respondent/Complainant First Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against orders dated 09.03.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur.

Quorum:-

Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Vaibhav Narang, Advocate For the respondent : None

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 JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-

The appellant-Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Authorized Signatory has filed the present appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) to challenge the impugned order dated 09.03.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ferozepur (hereinafter referred as the “District Commission”) in C.C. No.556 of 2019, whereby the complaint filed by respondent/complainant was allowed. The relevant part of said order is reproduced as under:-

“11. In view of what has been discussed above, the present complaint is allowed with Rs.3000/- as consolidated compensation for mental agony, pain and harassment as well as litigation expenses and the opposite party is directed to release the tube well connection after completing the remaining formalities to the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of copy of order.”

2. There was a delay of 42 days in filing of the appeal. M.A. No.800 of 2021 was filed which was supported by an affidavit of Sh. Satwinder Singh Sodhi, Additional Superintending Engineer, City Division of the PSPCL. Delay of 42 days in filing of the appeal was condoned vide order dated 10.01.2022 and said M.A. was disposed of.

3. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Commission.

4. Briefly, the facts of the case as mentioned in the complaint filed by the complainant Inderjit Singh before the District Commission which are necessary to reach to the conclusion that he applied for AP tubewell motor connection of 7.5 HP with OP and also deposited an amount of Rs.1600/- on 31.03.2013 as per demand made by the OP. The complainant also completed all necessary formalities and supplied all the required documents. The complainant approached the OP on a number of occasions but still tubewell motor connection was not released and matter was put off on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, again an amount of Rs.4500/- was deposited against proper receipt and thereafter again an amount of Rs.98,945/- was deposited on 14.11.2018. Thereafter, an amount of Rs.400/- was deposited for enhancement of motor connection from 7.5 HP to 10 HP. An assurance was given to release the connection but still nothing was done by the OP. Stating to be a case of ‘deficiency in service’ and allegations of ‘unfair trade practice’ on the part of OP the complaint was filed before the District Commission for direction to install the electric tubewell connection and to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation on account of causing mental agony, pain and harassment and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.

5. On issuing notice, OP appeared and filed written reply wherein certain preliminary objections were raised stating therein that there was no ‘deficiency in service’ on the part of the OP and the complainant did not approach the Commission with clean hands. It was also mentioned that the complainant