Oral:No one has appeared for the complainant to argue this matter despite the scanned record and video link having been sent to her counsel. The Court Master also sent a message to the learned counsel for the complainant requesting him to join but he has not joined the proceedings. A perusal of the record would show that no one had appeared for the complainant on 28.08.2020, 14.10.2020 and 27.10.2020 which were the last three dates of hearing. The matter being very old matter, the revision petitions having been filed in the year 2012 and the consumer complaints having been filed in 2008, there is no justification for any further adjournment. I have therefore heard the learned counsel for the opposite parties in the consumer complaints, namely, Gupta Electricals Pvt. Ltd. and Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. and have considered the record.2. The Punjab State Power Corp. Ltd. hereinafter to as the ‘Corporation’, had floated a scheme under which tublewell connections could be installed by the farmers with the approval of the said Corporation . On the complainant applying for the tubewell connection under the said scheme known as “OYT Scheme” and depositing Rs.27500/- on 13.2.2008, an estimate was prepared by Jr. Engineer of the Corporation and according to the complainant, he was asked to contact the petitioner Gupta Electricals for purchasing the requisite equipment and installing the transformer, poles and providing wiring upto her field. The petitioner demanded an amount of Rs.249110/- from the complainant for the aforesaid work which included the cost of the transformer and other equipment, wires, poles etc. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.239100/- to the petitioner on 25.3.2008. The work awarded to the petitioner however, was not completed and consequently the electricity connection was not released by the Corporation. The complainant therefore approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking compensation etc.3. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner as well as by the Corporation. In its reply, the Corporation admitted approval of the application of the complainant for installation of tubewell and deposit of registration fee as well as approval of the layout / sketch and bill of material. It was interalia stated in the written version of the Corporation that after approval of the sketch and bill of material, a refund order of Rs.25,000/- has to be issued to the farmer, after getting clearance from CEI Punjab, alongwith test report from the contractor, the connection is to be released. However, in this case the connection could not be released for want of requisite clearance certificate and test report.4. In its written version the petitioner admitted the transaction with the complainant. It was alleged that as per the approved site plans, the transmission line was to cross the house of a resident of the village, namely, Tarsem Singh but he did not allow the transmission line to cross over his house and, therefore, the work could not be completed though the petitioner had erected poles and taken wiring upto the house of Tarsem Singh.5. Another consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before the District Forum with a grievance that the petitioner had charged extra amount of Rs.92802/- from her. The details of the said excess charges have been given in para 5 of the consumer complaint. This consumer complaint was also opposed by the petitioner which denied having charged excess amount from the complainant6. The District Forum directed the petitioner to perform its part of contract and install the transformer. The Corporation was directed to release tubewell connection to the complainant. No compensation was awarded to the complainant though litigation cost quantified at Rs.2,000/- was awarded.7. Vide its order dated 9.6.2009 passed in the second consumer complaint, the District Forum directed the petitioner to refund the amount of Rs.92002/- to the complainant alongwith cost of litigation quantified at Rs.1,000/-8. Being aggrieved from the orders passed by the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission being FA/315/2009. The petitioner preferred two appeals before the State Commission, the said appeals being FA/347/2009 and FA/1035/2009.9. Vide its order dated 29.2.2012, the State Commission while dismissing FA/315/2009 and FA/347/2009 filed by the petitioner directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the complainant. FA/1035/2009 however was dismissed by the State Commission. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of these two separate revision petitions.10. It would be seen from the facts noted hereinabove that the case of the petitioner has been that the work could not be completed by it on account of one resident, namely, Tarsem Singh who had refused the cable crossing over is house. As per the approved sketch/lay out, the wiring was to cross over his house before it would reach the field of the complainant. However, no evidence was produced by the petitioner before the District Forum to prove the alleged refusal by the resident Mr. Tarsem Singh to allow the electrical wiring to cross over his house. No notice was ever given by the petitioner to the complainant stating therein that the work had been stopped on account of refusal of Tarsem Singh to allow the electrical wiring to cross over his house. On the other hand, the complainant filed the affidavit of Mr. Tarsm Singh and in the said affidavit he declined the alleged refusal. The Fora below were therefore, fully justified in holding that the plea taken by the petitioner imputing refusal of Shri Tarsem Singh to allow the electrical work to cross over his house, was not correct. The petitioner therefore, had been deficient in rendering services to the complainant which has not completed the work entrusted to it despite having taken Rs.2,39,000/- from the complainant.11. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no evidence of diesel having been purchased by the complainant and therefore his plea of having hired used tractor for the purpose of irrigating the land could not substantiated. I, however, find no merit in the contention. It has come in the written version of the Corporation that several parts were found missing from the transformer installed by the petitioner. The work was never completed and was never handed over by the petitioner to the complainant. It is for the petitioner to bear the cost of replacement of the parts which got stolen from the transformer. It appears from the impugned order that the complainant did incur some expenditure on replacement of those parts pursuant to interim order passed by the State Commission. In any case, the complainant suffered substantial mental agony and harassment on account of the petitioner having not completed the work despite having taken Rs.2,39,000/- from her. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the State Commission in any manner cannot said to be unjustified or excessive.12. Coming to the second aspect of the matter, it is complainant’s own case that the petitioner had demanded a sum of Rs.2,49,110/- from her for executing the work and she had paid a sum of Rs.239100/- to it. This is not the case of the complainant that the price of the equipment such as transformer or the price of poles, wires etc. had been statutorily fixed and she was charged more than statutory fixed price of the transformer poles etc. This is also not the case of the complainant that the cost of executing the work assigned to the petitioner had been fixed statutorily and she had been charged more than what had been fixed. Therefore, the payment made by the complainant to the petitioner was the consideration mutually agreed between the parties for installation of transformer etc. and fixing the electrical wires to the field of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant cannot be allowed to make a grievance with respect to the consideration charged from her by the petitioner, the said charges being a product of the mutual negotiation between the parties. The Fora below therefore, were not justified in directing ref
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
und of Rs.92002/- by the petitioner to the complainant.13. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-1. The petitioner shall pay compensation quantified at Rs.60,000/- by the State Commissionto the complainant within 08 weeks from today failing which, petitioner will be liable to pay interest on that amount @ 9% p.a. from the date of its order.2. The order passed by the Fora Below directing the petitioner to refund a sum of Rs.92002/- is set aside.3. The amount deposited by the petitioner with the District Forum shall be paid to the complainant to the extent it required for complying with this order and the balance amount shall be released to the complainant alongwith interest which may have accrued on that amount.4. The petitioner will be entitled to adjust the amount, if any, already paid to the complainant while complying with this order.