For the Appellant : Md. Ehran Zafar and Ms. Sruchi Dua, Advocates For Mr. Vineet Bhagat, Advocate

 Dated, the 9th day of August, 2010

ORDER

Not fully contended with the order dated 09.04.10 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, the State Commission’’) in consumer complaint ..2.. no. 11/08, the original complainant, Punjab State Coop. Supply & Marketing Federation Ltd., (MARKFRD) has filed the present appeal. The complaint before the State Commission was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Punjab State Electricity Board and its functionaries in not providing a separate 386 Kws. connection/line despite having received an estimated amount of Rs.10,97,615/- and an additional amount of Rs.83,240/-. The complaint was resisted by the Punjab State Electricity Board denying any deficiency in service on their part and explaining the circumstances in which the said separate feeder line from the transformer could not be provided to the complainant. It was contended that the proposed line was to pass over a railway track for which they sought requisite permission/sanction from the concerned Railways Authorities but the same was not forthcoming despite pursuing the matter. The State Commission, going by the above facts, evidence and the material produced on record, has partly allowed the complaint with the following directions:- “ Since the complainant Federation is to run the Rice Sheller Plant which needs the electric load of 386 KW from the separate feeder, the respondents would make concerted efforts to get the consent from the Ministry of Railways Government of India within a period of six months after they receive a copy of this order for laying down electric wires overhead the ..3.. railway track. If the sanction is not received by that time then respondents no. 1 to 3 would refund the amount of Rs.10,97,615/- plus Rs.83,240/- minus the fee, if any, on account of providing 11 KV line to the complainant Federation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of payment. Accordingly, this complaint is partly accepted in the terms stated above with costs of Rs.10,000/- “ 2. As per office report, the appeal was filed after delay of 55 days but the appellant has not cared to file any application seeking condonaiton of such delay. Even if, we condone the said delay in filing the present appeal, it is to be seen if there is any merit in the present appeal and whether the appeal for that reason can be said to be pre-mature, the time for taking action on behalf of the respondent is still available. In our view, the answer shall be “No” because the State Commission found that when the respondents had failed to provide a separate additional line of 360 KW from a separate feeder as the clearance of the Ministry of Railways was not forthcoming, the electric supply was made by the respondents to the complainant through a 11 KW line as a result no loss occasioned to the complainant so far as the functioning of Rice Shellers is concerned. In these ..4.. circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the State Commission is eminently justified and the complainant cannot claim any compensation over and above the interest which has been awarded to them on the amount deposited by them with the respondent Board. The appeal being devoid of any merit is dismissed in limine.