Complainant Jagtar Singh has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to make payment of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to him alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the due date till its actual realization. Opposite parties be further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that he has applied for getting the domestic electric connection in his house which has been constructed by him over the Plot No.87 vide his application no.100000062088 on 6.7.2012 and applied load was 7.946 KW and had deposited Rs.7160/- and Rs.3590/- respectively on 6.7.2012 and his application was entered and Account No. 3000301129 was also allotted to him. But inspite of completion of all the formalities by him, the opposite parties did not release the electric connection in his favour. Constrained by the illegal act of the opposite parties, he filed Consumer Complaint against the opposite parties and during the pendency of the said complaint, the opposite parties have released the electric connection in his favour and as such he has withdrawn the said complaint with permission to file fresh one. He has further pleaded that due to non installation of electric connection by the opposite parties in his premises, the PUDA authorities have not issued completion certificate to him and he was compelled to hire Generator for living in the said house and even he has also paid huge penalty to the PUDA authorities for non installation of the electric connection in his premises. The opposite parties have released the electric connection in his favour in the month of July 2015 i.e. after the lapse of more than 3 years and during this period, he has suffered great loss i.e. financial as well as physical at the hands of the opposite parties and as such he is entitled for the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- due to the illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form; following statutory provision and making compliance of rules, instruction provisions, sales regulations, supply code of 2014 and to fulfill the conditions of 6.7 (clause) and Sub clause 6.7.1 (a) to (f) of the Supply code does not amounts to deficiency in service being rendered by the opposite party; the present complaint is also not maintainable as earlier complaint was on same subject matter and on same reasons and there was no technical error or defect as alleged by the complainant and infact now had filed the present complaint on false frivolous, baseless allegation and it cannot be said that present complaint is continuation of the earlier complaint after removal of any error or defect and as such same is abuse of the process of law and is a vexatious frivolous and bogus complaint and  the act and conduct of the officials of the opposite party are protected under the provisions and act. On merits, it is submitted that applicant vide his application no.100000062088 on 6.07.2012 applied for Domestic Connection in PUDA Colony and load applied was 7.946 KW and had deposited Rs.7160/- and Rs.3590/- respectively on 6.7.2012 and his application was entered and Account No. 3000301129 was also allotted to him. However it is submitted that no temporary connection was issued to the complainant because the complainant never applied for any temporary connection. However later on in compliance and completion of prerequisite formalities and following of Sales regulations and Supply code 2014 (Amended) and regulation clause and to fulfill all the conditions of 6.7 (clause) and Sub clause 6.7.1 (a) to (f) of the Supply code and PUDA was to clear feasibility and to comply the mandatory provisions and in view of the same a notice vide memo no.1088 dated 14.8.2012 was served on the complainant to get feasibility and clearance or approved for getting connection to his premises as until and unless necessary approval is given by them till then no connection was to be granted in the colony and  there is no disparity or illegality in such condition or reason. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.      Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C5 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Harmanpreet Singh Gill S.D.O. PSPCL tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-9 and closed the evidence.

6.   We have duly heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the inter-se dispute (under the applicable Consumer Protection Act, 1986) prompting the present complaint. We find that the complainant had applied for one DS electricity connection on 06.07.2012 at his newly constructed House upon the PUDA Plot No 87 having duly paid the security of Rs.7160/- and application fee of Rs.3590/- for 7.946 KW of Power Load. Somehow, the OP Corporation released the connection in July’2015 but only at the filing of CC # 224/ 2015 by the complainant who subsequently had withdrawn the same alleging some ‘technical’ defect, therein. However, the present complaint has been filed again on the same cause of action seeking a ‘hefty’ compensation alleging a ‘substantial’ monetary loss having incurred to him due to the ‘non-release’ of the applied for ‘power-connection’ by the OP service providers.

7.       However, the opposite party corporation (service providers) has duly explained in their reply duly supported by sufficient ‘cogent’ evidence that came into the way of ‘non-release’ in the garb of ‘statutory provisions, rules & instructions, sales regulations & supply code 2014 etc and after having overcome these the impugned connection was admittedly released. Moreover, the OP service providers have also objected the filing of the present complaint on the same cause of action without stating the alleged ‘technical-fault’ and its removal etc in the present complaint. We find legal force in the OP’s above averments. The OPs have also deposed in its affidavit Ex.OP1 duly supported by the Supply Code copy that ‘delay’ was caused by the colonizers PUDA to submit Feasibility & Clearance reports for the release of power connections in the PUDA colony and somehow the complainant has dropped PUDA from the present complaint as one of the ‘opposite parties’ and thus no relief can be claimed by the present complainant. Somehow, we find the explanation as made out by the opposite party service providers as satisfactory and legally valid. The demand as put forth upon the complainant and delay incurred in release of power connection by the opposite party corporation has been a matter of routine and they have been within their legal rights to have followed the legally determined guidelines in accordance with the Sales & Distribution of Electricity Rules & Regulations etc. 

8.       In the light of the all above, we do not find any statutory merit in the present complaint and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no order as to its costs. 

9.        Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.

                   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                      President   

Announced:                                                             (Jagdeep Kaur)

August,17 2016                                                               Member

*MK*