This revision petition is against an order dated 16.5.2006  of  the  Punjab  State  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, “the State Commission”) passed in execution proceedings filed by the deceased complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, “the District Forum”).

       In the aforesaid order the State Commission took the view that the compensation of Rs.3,000/- granted by the District Forum in the execution proceedings on account of delay in restoring the petitioner/complainant’s electricity connection was reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case.

       On 11.10.2006, while dealing with the matter this Commission had observed that compensation was enhanced in a similar matter and that the revision petition was being

-3-

 admitted because just Rs.3,000/- had been awarded by way of compensation in this case.

       Though Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Commission with the case of the petitioner/complainant, it is seen from the subsequent proceedings that no decision of this Commission enhancing the compensation in a similar case was cited on behalf of the petitioner either by the Amicus Curiae or the petitioner’s son and legal representative who has been appearing on the last several occasions.

       Though a notice for today’s hearing was issued in accordance with the direction dated 10^th October, 2011, no one is present on behalf of the petitioner. However noting that Mr. Vijay Karan Singh Nayar, son and legal representative of the deceased petitioner was present on 11^th April, 2011 in response to earlier notice sent to him at the same address, it is of no consequence (from the point of

-4-

 view of due service) that the notice issued to him on 3.11.2011 has been received back with the postal remark, “Left”.

       It is also seen that the main concern of the petitioner regarding restoration of his electricity connection has been met long time back. Therefore, the impugned order of the State Commission affirming the compensation of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the District Forum in its order in the execution proceedings cannot be said to be such as to call for our interference under the provisions of section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

       The revision petition is thus disposed of in the foregoing terms.