We condone the delay.  The appeal shall be registered forthwith. 

2.    We have heard Shri. Raikar, the lr. advocate of the complainant at the stage of admission. 

3.   The complaint filed by the complainant on 20/05/14 to recover compensation of Rs. 10 lacs from the Department of Electricity (OPs) came to be dismissed by order dated 20/08/14, impugned in the appeal, interalia, observing that:

“Neither the complainant in her complaint nor the lawyer who argued the case of the complainant was able to show to us the alleged delay in giving the electricity connection to the complainant by the OPs. According to us, the complaint does not fit within the four corners of the Consumer Protection Act.”

4.  The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 90,000/- against the Department for not giving electricity connection to the complainant for 13 years.  We asked Shri. Raikar, the lr. advocate as to when the complainant had made the application for obtaining electricity supply for the first time, but lr. advocate was unable to make any statement or produce a copy of such a complaint or for that matter any fees paid by the complainant to the Department.

5.  The facts show that the complainant obtained an order dated 12/7/13 from the Health Officer, Urban Health Centre, Vasco, issued under Section 94A(1)(a) of the GDD Public Health Act, 1985 directing the Electricity Department to grant an electrical connection to the complainant, on an application filed by the complainant on 10/10/12.  No date was set out in the said order within which the said electricity connection was to be given to the complainant. 

6. The complainant, therefore, addressed a legal notice dated 17/2/14  to  the  Electricity  Department  and  it  is the submission of

Shri. Raikar, the lr. adovate, that the Electricity connection was given by the complainant within a week of the said legal notice dated 17/2/14.  However, lr. advocate was unable to make any statement as to when the complainant paid the fees or made the security deposit for obtaining the said electricity connection.

7.     The complainant sought compensation of another Rs.90,000/-   for not providing the electricity connection, despite the order of the Health Officer and Rs. 3.80 lacs towards mental agony and stress caused to the complainant and her two daughters.

8.     Later, Adv. Shri. Raikar submitted a copy of the electricity bill which shows that connection was given to the complainant on 26/2/14 after the complainant made the deposit to obtain the same on 25/2/14.  Hence there is no delay or deficiency in service on the part of the Department.

9.     If Section 94A of the GDD Public Health Act ’85 enables the Government to provide electricity as an essential service, section 94 C of the Act of 1985 provides for punishment for non compliance with the order issued under Section 94A.  Section 94C states that any person who does not comply with such orders shall, on a trial by a Magistrate, be liable to be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/- or both.  It is not the case of the complainant that she had filed any criminal complaint against anyone in the Department for not complying the Order from 12/7/13 to 26/2/13.

10.     The main grievance of the complainant appears to be that he was not provided with the electricity connection by the Electricity Department despite the said order dated 12/7/13, and, if that be so the  remedy  which  was available to the complainant was one under

Section 94C of the said Act.  As already stated, there was no delay on the part of the Department to release the connection after the complainant made the deposit on 25/2/14.  Only if there was a delay on the part of the Electricity Department in releasing the electricity connection, after making the payment, then only there might have been the question of deficiency in service.  Not otherwise.

11.   The complainant has failed to show that the Electricity Department failed to provide electricity to the complainant despite making payment after the order dated 12/7/13.  The complaint is clearly misconceived and is otherwise speculative and it was rightly dismissed.

12.     We find there is no merit in this appeal and therefore the same is hereby dismissed.