BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMRITSAR.

Consumer Complaint No. 162 of 2019

Date of Institution: 27.2.2019

Date of Decision:4.10.2021 

Vinod Sarin S/o Tilak Raj carrying on business at Joshipura Opposite Khalsa College, Amritsar

Complainant

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. , through the SDO (Commercial) West Sub Division, Chheharta, Opposite OCM Mills, Amritsar

Opposite Party

Complaint under section 11 & 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (  now u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

Result : Complaint Allowed

Cases referred:-

1. Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Kuldip Singh 2004(1) CPC page 657 by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab Chandigarh
2. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rajji Bai 2009(1) CLT page 526 by Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
3. M/s. Kundan Mill Board & Paper Mills & Anr. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & Ors.  2014(2) Civil Court Cases  44 of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court
4. United Bank of India, Kolkatta Vs. M/s.Janata Paradise Hotel & Restaurant, Jorhat-I, Assam of the  Hon’ble National Commission

Counsel for the parties  :

For the  Complainant               : Sh.S.K.Sharma,Advocate

For the Opposite Party              : Sh. Anil Sharma,Advocate

CORAM

Mr. Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President

Mr.Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member

ORDER:-

Mr. Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President :-Order of this commission will dispose of the present complaint  filed by the complainant u/s  11 & 12  of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now covered  u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).

Brief facts and pleadings

1.  Brief facts of the complaint  are that complainant  has obtained an electricity connection bearing account No. 3002877230 under SP category. The complainant is using the said connection  for running power looms with the help of  his son and one employee for earning his livelihood by way of self employment. Thus the complainant having hired the services of the opposite party for consideration, is a consumer of the abovesaid connection, as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and has a right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission for the redressal of her grievance by filing this complaint. The meter of the complainant was already installed outside his premises and its monthly reading is always taken by technical officer of the opposite party i.e. JE I. The complainant was shocked and surprise to receive a memo No. 142 dated 21.1.2019 for an amount of Rs. 20,189/- from the opposite party, copy of memo is Ex.C-2.  The abovesaid amount was of power factor  and claimed on the instructions of Audit party. It is worth to mention here that neither any separate notice regarding removal of the defect in the shunt capacitor has been received nor he was ever informed by any officials of the opposite party regarding the defective working of the shunt capacitor. Moreover the amount has been  charged on the directions of the audit party but as per law they have no right to claim any amount. The complainant through  his  association had already made a written representation to the Chief Engineer, Border Zone, PSPCL, Amritsar regarding the abovesaid fact which was marked to the SDO, Civil Lines, Amritsar , copy of letter is Ex.C-3. The SDO Civil Lines, Amritsar written a letter/memo No. 1699 dated 28.3.2018 to Asstt. Account Officer, Mall Audit party, Civil Lines Division, Amritsar vide which a request has been made to reconsider their decision as the same is beyond the purview of the ESIM, copy of memo is Ex.C-4. But the audit party vide memo No. 164 dated 6.4.2018 flatly refused to accede to their genuine requests, copy of memo is Ex.C-5 As per CC No. 26/2016 & ESIM (General condition of Tariff) “ in case shunt capacitors are found to be missing or inoperative or damaged, a 15 days notice shall be issued to the consumer for rectification of the defect and setting right the same. In case the defective capacitors are not replaced/rectified within 15 days of the issue of notice, surcharge and the rate of 20% on bill amount shall be levied for the proceedings two months and it shall continue to be levied till the defective capacitors are replaced/rectified to the satisfaction of the PSPCL. In case the capacitors are found to be of inadequate rating, the capacitor surcharge shall be levied on pro-rata basis.” Copy of circular is Ex.C-6. Moreover as per law laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, no liability can be fastened merely  on the basis of audit note of the audit party . The complainant showed them the abovesaid rules and circular but they hardly bothered to listen to him.   The complainant was running from pillar to post for withdrawal of the memo, but to no avail. The complainant raised hue and cry and asked them to withdraw the bill as he is only liable to pay current consumption charges, but they hardly bothered to listen to him.  The aforesaid act of the opposite party amounts to a great negligence, carelessness, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party due to  which the complainant has suffered a great mental pain, agony, harassment, inconvenience at their hands. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-

1. Opposite party be directed to  withdraw the impugned memo No. 142 dated 21.1.2019 for an amount of Rs. 20,189/-  or in the alternative the same may be set-aside ;
2. Compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- alongwith  litigation expenses  of Rs. 11000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
3. Any consequential relief for which the complainants are found entitled to may also be awarded to them  ;

Hence, this complaint.

2.       Upon notice, opposite party appeared and filed written version  taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that   no cause of action has arisen to the complainant to file the present complaint against  the opposite parties since the charges claimed by the opposite party are legal, valid and as per rules and regulations of the department and the complainant is liable to pay the same and the complaint is liable to be dismissed ; that as per rules and regulations of the department each and every consumer having connection under “small power category” “Medium supply category” , “Large supply category” , “Bulk supply category” is to maintain “power factor” which is a ratio of kilo watts to the Killo volt Amperes drawn by any electrical appliances/equipment. It is worth mentioning here that the said consumers are getting supply of electricity through the meters  which record two kinds of readings for the purpose of billing i.e. KWH (kilo watt hour) and KVAH (Kilo Volt Ampere per hour). Earlier upto 31.7.2018 the billing of the said consumers are used to be done on the basis of KWH reading and power factor was used to be calculated as KWH/KVAH. As per rules and regulations, the said consumers were required to maintain the said ratio at 0.90 and in case said ratio comes out to be less than the prescribed ratio, such consumers were liable to pay power factor surcharge and if the said ratio exceeds the prescribed ratio such consumers were entitled  incentives/rebate in the bill amount. It is worth mentioning here that the bills issued by the department to the consumers including the complainant contained a column in which the power factor ratio is specifically mentioned and as such the complainant was aware of the fact that the power factor is not being maintained by him . It is also worth mentioning here that in the present complaint, the complainant has nowhere alleged that he had no knowledge about the maintenance of the power factor and that he had no knowledge about the prescribed ratio of power factor which was required to be maintained by him. The only ground propounded by the complainant in the present complaint  is that the opposite party has not issued 15 days notice to the complainant before raising the impugned demand. In this respect the complainant has also reproduced the relevant provision of Electricity Supply Instructions Manual (General  conditions of tariff) . Mere perusal of the said provision will reveal that opposite parties were  bound to serve 15 days notice to the complainant in respect to the non maintenance of the power factor, had there been any defect in the shunt capacitor installed in the premises of the complainant, if the said shunt capacitors were found to be damaged or missing, only. In the present case the complainant has not alleged that he was unable to maintain the power factor on account of any damage or defect in the shunt capacitor or that the same were missing. Also there is no report by any of the officials of the department that the  shunt capacitor installed in the premises of the complainant are missing, defective or damaged. It is worth mentioning here that the variation or non maintainability of the prescribed ratio cannot be solely attributed to any defect in the shunt capacitor, damage to it but defect in the wiring or the machinery installed in the premises can also be equally responsible for the variation or non maintainability of the prescribed ratio of power factor. It is also worth mentioning here that under the rules and regulations it was the  responsibility of the complainant to maintain the prescribed ratio of power factor and from the bills issued to him by the department he was continuously made aware of the fact that he is not maintaining the power factor as per the prescribed ratio. Under the circumstances, the complainant at this stage cannot raise dispute in respect to the demand claimed by the department vide impugned notice . Moreover there is no such provision under the rules and regulations to serve any notice to the consumers for non maintaining the prescribed ratio of power factor. Infact the complainant by keeping the ratio of power factor lower than the prescribed ratio is causing financial loss to the opposite party. The detail of consumption and power faction ratio for the period 26.5.2015 to 10.7.2018. The electricity connection bearing account No. 3002877230 installed in the premises of the complainant  under “Small power category”.The said electric connection is being used by the complainant for running his industrial unit i.e. for commercial purpose, as such the complainant cannot avail the remedy before this Commission  under the garb of false plea that he is using the said connection for earning his livelihood by way of self employment. As such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this very ground. On merits, most of the pleas taken were similar  as were taken in the preliminary objections, as such those pleas need not be reproduced. While submitting that there is no deficiency in service and while denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.    

Points for Determination

3.       From the pleadings the following are the points to be determined by this Commission:-

1.     Whether there is deficiency in service the part of the opposite party in raising a demand of Rs. 20,189/- vide memo No. 142 dated 21.1.2019   ?
2.      If point No.1 is proved , whether the complainant is entitled for compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and also entitled for litigation expenses , if so , to what amount ?

Evidence of the complainant and Arguments

4.       Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed  self attested affidavit Ex.C-1,  copy of memo  No. 142 dated 21.1.2019 Ex.C-2,  copy of letter  written by Association to the Chief Engineer , Border Zone Ex.C-3, copy of  memo No. 1699 dated 30.3.2018  issued by SDO Civil Lines, Amritsar to Asstt.Account Officer Ex.C4, copy of memo No. 164 dated 6.4.2018 Ex.C-5, copy of circular Ex.C-6, and closed his evidence.

5.       On the other hand opposite party alongwith written version has filed affidavit of Er. Neeraj Sharma , SDO, copy of memo No. 142 dated 21.1.2019 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.

6.       We have heard the Ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file. Ld.counsel for the complainant as well as Ld.counsel for the opposite parties made statements that their complaint alongwith accompanied documents as well as written statement respectively be read as part and parcel of written arguments.

Findings

7.       From the pleadings of the parties , it stands proved on record that the complainant is using the electricity connection bearing account No. 3002877230 under SP category   . It was the case of the complainant that he is running power looms with the help of his son and  one employee for earning his livelihood by way of self employment.  It also stands proved on record that the meter of the complainant was already installed outside his premises and its monthly reading is always taken by technical officer of the opposite party i.e. JE I. The complainant was shocked and surprise to receive a memo No. 142  dated 21.1.2019 for an amount of Rs. 20,189/- from the opposite party which  was issued by the sub division on the directions of the audit party who has no right/power to claim. After receipt of this memo the complainant immediately approached the sub division and showed them the previous electricity bill and its payment receipts thereof and asked for the details of the issuing of the abovesaid memo. In reply to that the opposite party at that time informed  the complainant that the memo was issued due to  the defective shunt capacitor installed at his business premises. It is worthwhile to mention here that neither any separate notice regarding the removal of the defect in the shunt capacitor , of any has been received by the complainant  nor he was ever informed by any officials of the  opposite party regarding  the defective working of the shunt capacitor. Later on the complainant came to know that association had already made a written representation to the Chief Engineer, Border Zone, PSPCL, Amritsar regarding the abovesaid fact which was marked to the SDO, Civil Lines, Amritsar , copy of letter is Ex.C-3. The SDO Civil Lines, Amritsar written a letter/memo No. 1699 dated 28.3.2018 to Asstt. Account Officer, Mall Audit party, Civil Lines Division, Amritsar vide which a request has been made to reconsider their decision as the same is beyond the purview of the ESIM, copy of memo is Ex.C-4. But the audit party vide memo No. 164 dated 6.4.2018 flatly refused to accede to their genuine requests. It has been contended  by the Ld.counsel for the complainant that as per CC No. 26/2016 & ESIM (General condition of Tariff) “ in case shunt capacitors are found to be missing or inoperative or damaged, a 15 days notice shall be issued to the consumer for rectification of the defect and setting right the same. In case the defective capacitors are not replaced/rectified within 15 days of the issue of notice, surcharge and the rate of 20% on bill amount shall be levied for the proceedings two months and it shall continue to be levied till the defective capacitors are replaced/rectified to the satisfaction of the PSPCL. In case the capacitors are found to be of inadequate rating, the capacitor surcharge shall be levied on pro-rata basis.” Moreover the memo has been issued under the directions of the audit party but as per law the audit party has no right to claim any amount from the consumers. Counsel for the complainant contended that the aforesaid act of the opposite party amounts to a great negligence, carelessness, deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party due to  which the complainant has suffered a great mental pain, agony, harassment, inconvenience at their hands.

8.       On the other hand the plea of the opposite party is that as per rules and regulations of the department each and every consumer having connection under “small power category” “Medium supply category” , “Large supply category” , “Bulk supply category” is to maintain “power factor” which is a ratio of kilo watts to the Killo volt Amperes drawn by any electrical appliances/equipment. . It has further been submitted that the said electric connection  bearing account No. 3002877230 installed in the premises of the complainant under SP category is being used by the complainant for running his industrial unit i.e. for commercial purpose, as such the complainant cannot avail the remedy before this Commission  under the garb of false plea that he is using the said connection for earning his livelihood by way of self employment. Ld.counsel for the opposite party contended that there is no deficiency in service in raising the impugned demand  and the demand has been raised as per rules and regulations of the opposite party and while denying and controverting other allegations, dismissal of complaint was prayed.

9.       From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case the only case of the complainant is that the opposite party has raised a demand of Rs. 20,189/- vide memo No. 142 dated 21.1.2019 which was issued  by the sub division on the directions of the audit party.  However, when after receipt of the said memo complainant approached the opposite party,  the opposite party informed that  the memo was issued due to inoperative/defective shunt capacitor.  It was the case of the complainant that  neither any separate notice regarding the removal of the defect in the shunt capacitor  if any has been received by the complainant  which was against the circular of the opposite party vide CC No. 26/2016 & ESIM (General condition of Tariff) vide which  it has been specifically written that “in case shunt capacitors are found to be missing or inoperative or damaged, a 15 days notice shall be issued to the consumer for rectification of the defect and setting right the same. In case the defective capacitors are not replaced/rectified within 15 days of the issue of notice, surcharge and the rate of 20% on bill amount shall be levied for the proceedings two months and it shall continue to be levied till the defective capacitors are replaced/rectified to the satisfaction of the PSPCL. In case the capacitors are found to be of inadequate rating, the capacitor surcharge shall be levied on pro-rata basis.”. However, perusal of the file shows that no such 15 days notice was ever issued to the complainant before raising the said demand vide memo No. 142 dated 21.1.2019. Rather  it stands proved on record on the representation made by the Association Ex.C-3 to the Chief Engineer, Border Zone, PSPCL Amritsar  which was marked to the SDO, Civil Lines, Amritsar and who further wrote a memo No. 1699 dated 28.3.2018 to Asstt. Account Officer, Mall Audit Party, Civil Lines, Division Amritsar  in which it has been requested to the AAO to reconsider their decision as the same is beyond the purview of ESIM, copy of memo is Ex.C-4. However, the said request of the SDO, Civil Lines, Amritsar was refused  by the AAO, Audit Party (Mall), Amritsar   vide memo No. 164 dated 6.4.2018 Ex.C-5 and it has been specifically written in the memo Ex.C-5 that due to non service of notice vide circular No. 26/2016 to the consumers the power factor surcharge were not imposed due to which the department has suffered loss. As such the SDO, Civil Lines Division, Amritsar was directed to recover the amount as detected by the audit party vide half margin  from the defaulters so that the department may not suffer the loss. So the perusal of abovesaid memo Ex.C-4 & Ex.C-5 it has been admitted by the opposite party that the before raising the demand of Rs. 20,189/- vide memo No. 142 dated 21.1.2019 on account of defective shunt capacitor , no prior notice of 15 days in case of shunt capacitors are damaged was served upon the complainant as per CC No. 26/2016. As such the opposite party itself not followed their own rules and regulations before raising the impugned demand on the complainant. Not only this the impugned memo was issued on the directions of  audit party . However, it was  contended that audit party cannot prepare any audit report adverse to the interest of the consumer without serving a prior notice on him. Reliance in this connection has been placed upon Punjab State Electricity Board Vs. Kuldip Singh 2004(1) CPC page 657 wherein it has been held by Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab Chandigarh  in para 4 & 5 that :-

“After hearing the Counsels for the parties and after having gone through the record the District Forum allowed the complaint. The relevant portion of the order of the District Forum is reproduced hereunder :

“The complainant was granted connection for running load of 15 HP for agriculture purposes. As per rules the consumers were charged at flat rate according to the connected load. Contention of the opposite party is that by clerical error the charges from the complainant were realised on connected load of 3 HP. The error came to the notice when the accounts were audited. The audit party has given the report and calculated the amount payable by the complainant for the period from 3/95 to 297 at Rs. 16,140/-. Surcharge of Rs. 1,640/- has also been added. Learned Counsel for the complainant has cited before us the decision of Madras High Court in case S.A. Ahamed v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2002(2) Civil Court Cases 112, and has argued that the opposite party has no right to recover the amount, if at all due, for the period of more than 3 years. Ratio of that case is applicable to the present case. The complainant paid the charges according to the bills issued to him. He cannot be penalised for any deliberate or negligent act of the concerned official of the opposite party. Claim of the opposite party covering the period from 3/95 to 2/97 is barred by time. It is not a case where any arrears are outstanding against the complainant. On the other hand, it is a case where the complainant is being asked to pay the penalty for default of the official of the opposite party. Opposite party issued bills to the complainant and the bills were duly paid by him. No notice was given to the complainant by the audit party before giving the report and the report is one-sided. We are, thus of the opinion that the opposite party has no lawful right to recover the amount of Rs. 16,140/- and Rs. 1,640/- from the complainant. The complainant paid the amount only under threat of disconnection. Hence, he is entitled to refund of the amount. The point is decided accordingly.”

5. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. District Forum had relied upon a decision of the Madras High Court in case S.A. Ahamed v. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 2002 (2) Civil Court Cases 112, while deciding matter in issue and rightly held so. Complainant had paid the charges according to bills issued to him. He cannot be penalised for any negligent act of the concerned official of the opposite party. Claim of the opposite party, covering the period from 3/95 to 2/97 was barred by time. District Forum has rightly held that it is not a case where any arrears were outstanding against the complainant. On the other hand, it was a case where the complainant was being asked to pay the penalty for default of the officials of the opposite party. The opposite party had been issuing the bills to the complainant and the bills were duly paid by him. No notice was given to the complainant by the audit party before giving the report. The report certainly was one-sided. We are not inclined to interfere in the order of the District Forum. This appeal is, thus, dismissed as meritless.”

Further reliance has been placed upon Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Rajji Bai 2009(1) CLT page 526 wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in para 5 of the orders that :-

“The learned Counsel representing the appellants while assailing the order of the District Forum dated 12.12.2007 mainly contended that the District Forum had overlooked the factual position brought on record and for that reason the order of the District Forum deserved to be set aside. There is hardly any force in the submission made. Admittedly, in this case demand has been made by the opposite parties on the basis of objection raised by the Audit Party. The opposite parties have placed on record the documents containing estimate of the additional demand made Ex. R-1 to Ex. R-6. It is clear from the material placed on record that the opposite parties have not cared to follow the relevant instructions contained in Para Nos. 2 and 3 of the Sales Circular No. 27/96 which read as under:

“It is regular feature in the Electricity Board that Audit Parties audit the consumer’s account and penalty is imposed whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party. It is understood that whenever any discrepancy is pointed out by the Audit Party, the SDO concern is required to check the report but in practice the penalty is imposed without any cross checking by the SDO concerned. Before imposing penalty, etc., notice is required to be given to consumer to explain his position.

“The requirement of law is that proper prescribed procedure is to be followed and before imposing penalty on the consumer notice is required to be issued to the consumer. It should be ensure that seven days is given to the consumer before imposing penalty in such cases.”

The above instructions leave no manner of doubt that the opposite parties were duty bound to supply the necessary details of the audit report and to give a proper notice in terms of the above stated requirement which the opposite parties have not complied with in this case.”

Further reliance has been placed upon  M/s. Kundan Mill Board & Paper Mills & Anr. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & Ors.  2014(2) Civil Court Cases  44 of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court  wherein it has been held as under:-

“We may notice that any internal audit objection is only an opinion and cannot by itself a justification for raising of a supplementary or initial bill. The concerned authorities are required to examine whether there should have been clubbing of the two connections for purposes of raising of the bill based on material sought from the petitioners. This was apparently not done. Except for general platitude that the whole matter has been examined, it is impossible to decipher any reasons for clubbing the two connections when it has not been stated as to how the two entities are interconnected. The only objection initially raised was the allegation of there being electricity connection on the same land without there being separation of the premises for which purpose the petitioners were called upon to construct a wall separating the two premises and to have a separate entrance. This was done by the petitioners and the concerned authorities were satisfied and even confirmed this fact to the Chief Auditor in their communication. Thus, it appears that the impugned decision has been taken only on the basis of the audit objection and is devoid of any reason.”

10.     In the case in hand the opposite party itself by moving an application to the audit party wrote a memo No. 1699 dated 28.3.2018 to Asstt. Account Officer, Mall Audit Party, Civil Lines, Division Amritsar  in which it has been requested to the AAO to reconsider their decision as the same is beyond the purview of ESIM, copy of memo is Ex.C-4. However, the said request of the SDO, Civil Lines, Amritsar was refused  by the AAO, Audit Party (Mall), Amritsar  .  So the opposite party by admitting their fault requested  the AAO to reconsider their decision as the same is beyond the purview of ESIM which request of the opposite party was refused by AAO, Audit party, Amritsar . However, as per the law cited in case M/s. Kundan Mill Board & Paper Mills & Anr. Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala & Ors.  2014(2) Civil Court Cases  44 of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court , the audit party can only give opinion and it was the opposite party who can consider the opinion given by the audit party. So the opposite party itself admitted their fault that the act of the opposite party  is beyond the purview of ESIM.

11.     The other plea of the opposite party is that  the electric connection is being used by the complainant for running his industrial unit i.e. for commercial purpose, as such the complainant cannot avail the remedy before this Commission under the garb of false plea that he is using the said connection for earning his livelihood. But we are not agreed with this plea of the opposite party as the complainant is using the abovesaid connection for running power looms with the help of his son and  one employee for earning his livelihood by way of self employment. . Reliance in this connection has been placed upon United Bank of India, Kolkatta Vs. M/s.Janata Paradise Hotel & Restaurant, Jorhat-I, Assam of the  Hon’ble National Commission, that where the complainant has not pleaded that loan or any credit facility was taken by the complainant for earning livelihood by means of ‘self employment’, in such circumstances, the complainant does not fall within the purview of ‘consumer’. But  in the case in hand the complainant has specifically pleaded that  the connection is being used  for running power looms with the help of his son for earning livelihood by way of self employment. As such the law laid down (supra) squarely covers the case of the complainant and the complainant falls within the definition of consumer.

12.     Keeping in view the facts as narrated above and the law laid down (supra), the opposite party is found guilty of deficiency in service in raising the demand of Rs. 20,189/-  vide memo No. 142 dated 21.1.2019  As such point No. (i) is decided in favour of the complainant and the complainant is entitled to the following reliefs:-

(i)     Opposite party  is directed to  set-aside the impugned memo No. 142 dated 21.1.2019 for an amount of Rs. 20,189/- . Opposite party is also directed to refund 25% of the impugned demand raised vide memo No. 142 dated 21.1.2019 deposited by the complainant by the orders of this Commission dated 5.3.2019.

(ii)     So far as compensation as claimed is concerned, since the complainant was compelled to knock the door of this Commission  and the opposite party did not bother to redress the grievance of the complainant  and  had it was redressed at appropriate time, certainly this litigation could have been avoided . Admittedly “compensation term” has not been explained in the Consumer Protection Act, however this Act is based on principle of equity, good concise  and natural justice and the Commission is empowered to award compensation after assessing the facts of each case. As the complainant , has suffered a lot of mental as well as physical agony due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, as such the  opposite party is  liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 7000/-  to the complainant. Opposite party is also directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 3000/- to the complainant  .

Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which complainant shall be entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Commission.  Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission.

Announced in Open Commission               (Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra)                                                                                                                                                                                             President

Dated: 4.10.2021

                                                      (Jatinder Singh Pannu)      

                                                                        Member