STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH Date of Institution : 23.05.2025 Reserved on : 27.03.2026 Date of Decision : 10.04.2026 Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its SDO, Sub Division Tangra, District Amritsar.

…..Appellant/Opposite Party Versus Vikas Kumar S/o Ramesh Kumar, R/o Village Tangra, Tehsil Baba Bakala Sahib, District Amritsar.

….Respondent/Complainant Appeal under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 to challenge the order dated 08.05.2024 passed in CC No.199 of 2020 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar. Quorum:-

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

For the Appellant : Ms. Priyanka Goyal, Advocate for Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Sr. Adv.

(through VC)

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/OP has filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) to challenge the impugned order dated 08.05.2024 passed in CC No.199 of 2020 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Amritsar (in short the “District Commission”) whereby the Complaint had been allowed.

I.A. No.865 of 2025

2. I.A. No.865 of 2025 has been filed for condonation of delay of 402 days in filing of the Appeal. Said Application has been supported by an Affidavit.

3. Notice in the Application was issued to the Respondent for 11.09.2025 and in response to said notice none has appeared inspite of service.

4. Ms. Priyanka Goyal Advocate, learned proxy Counsel on behalf of Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Senior Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the order was passed on 08.05.2024 and the certified copy was prepared on 16.05.2025. Said copy was received by the local Counsel on 18.05.2025. The copy of the order was sent to the office of Sub-Divisional Officer. The Under Secretary/Legal Patiala had raised certain objections vide letter dated 04.07.2024 and asked for detailed comments from the concerned Division regarding the case. Thereafter, on removing the objection, it was sent for detailed comments vide letter dated 01.08.2024 and thereafter the opinion was given by advising to file the Appeal against the impugned order. Said letter was received in the office of the concerned Division on 12.08.2024. Further, SDO had forwarded the documents to the Counsel for filing the Appeal and thereafter the demand draft was to be prepared for filing the Appeal. The record of the case was supplied on 10.09.2024. Thereafter, the Appeal was prepared and it was sent for signatures on 20.10.2024. Thereafter, it was further informed to provide the authority letter and the demand draft. Since the amount was more than 2 lakhs in the case for which the approval of the concerned Director was required. On obtaining the opinion from the Chief Engineer, the case was prepared and it was forwarded to the Director Distribution vide letter dated 07.11.2024. For seeking approval from the Chief Engineer it was sent to him on 08.11.2024. On receiving the demand draft as well as the authority letter, the documents were signed and it was sent to the Counsel on 12.11.2024. Thereafter, some changes were made in the draft and again some documents were demanded which were provided. Thereafter, in the last week of November 2024 on receiving the documents, the Appeal was drafted and filed on online portal of the Commission on 03.12.2024. Further, it has been submitted that in the process, the delay of 152 had occurred in filing of the Appeal. Learned Counsel has further submitted that actually delay is 152 days in filing the Appeal. Thereafter, the Registry has again raised certain objections. The officials were asked to provide fair copies and on supp