Aggrieved by the order dated 12.01.2010 passed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in first appeal No. 957 of 2005, Punjab State Electricity Board (P.S.E.B.) has filed the present proceedings under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appeal before the State Commission was filed against an order dated 1.2.2005 passed by District Consumer Forum, Sangrur in complaint filed by the complainant, by which order, the complaint was dismissed. In the appeal, the State Commission in absence of the counsel for the respondent-opposite party-Board and going by the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant-complainant, has allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner-Board to issue a demand notice to the appellant within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of that order and the respondent will release the tubwell connection to the appellant within two months from the compliance of the demand notice by the appellant and the Board was directed to pay Rs.5,000/- for harassment. Since there was undue delay in filing the present proceedings, an application for condonation of delay has been filed. The main cause shown for the delay in the application is that after taking legal opinion, the matter was entrusted to certain advocate, namely, Mr. Tarun Kumar for filing the revision petition before this Commission but he failed to discharge his duties as a counsel and ultimately, after several months, Board becoming aware of the said conduct of the counsel appointed another counsel and revision petition was filed. Affidavit of concerned Engineer and thereafter that of the Chief Engineer of the Board stand filed in support of the application. The application is vehemently opposed by Mr. Ravinder Singh, learned Amicus Curie appointed by this Commission to conduct the case on behalf of the respondent and a reply has been filed. 2. Having considered the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the fact that there was no deliberate or intentional delay on the part of the petitioner-Board in as much as it has taken action promptly to challenge the order of the State Commission but it was due to the default of the counsel so engaged, the revision petition could not be filed within time, we allow the present application for condonation of delay, subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid to the respondent. 3. Now, coming to the merits of the revision petition, going by the scheme which was in vogue at the relevant time, the complainant had applied for grant of an electric connection for tubewell by depositing a sum of Rs.3,360/- as far back as on 15.12.1998 but the connection was not provided nor any reason was given for not doing so. However, afterwards, the said scheme was closed and the Board brought another scheme called ‘OYT Scheme’ under which applicants of earlier scheme could get refund of the amount deposited under the earlier scheme and apply for electric connection under the new scheme by complying with the requirement of said scheme. It appears that the complainant was insisting on the release of the connection under old scheme and was not willing to avail the new scheme by making fresh application as was required. That led to the present position that the complainant could not be given any electric connection till date. Though despite the period of almost 13 years has lapsed since his first application. This is indeed an unfortunate situation because a farmer has been deprived of an electric connection for a long period. 4. Mr. H. M. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner under instruction of the petitioner-Board states that the petitioner-Board is prepared to release an electric connection to the respondent within a period of three months if the complainant applies under ‘OYT Scheme’ and fulfills the requisite requirement of such scheme including the payment required to be made. He submits that while doing so, the petitioner-Board will adjust the amount already deposited by the complainant alongwith interest thereon. In our view, this is a good solution of the problem of the complainant. 5. Having considered the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order be set aside/modified to the extent that on making an application and complete formalities and making the payment of the requisite amount (after adjusting a sum of Rs.3360/- already deposited with interest @12% per annum w.e.f. 15.12.1998 till the date of application) plus Rs.10,000/- to be paid under these orders), the petitioner shall release the electric connection to the complainant-respondent within a period of three months from the date of application. The revision petition stands disposed of in the above terms. |
