Gupta Electrical, Roshan Road, Near OBC Bank, Hoshiarpur, through its Proprietor/Partner.

1.

The complainant namely Sampuran Kaur has filed the present complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred as the Act”. Stated briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant applied for tubewell connection under “OYT Scheme” with the PSEB. The complainant completed all the formalities and also deposited the amount of Rs. 27,500/- on 13.2.2008 with the Electricity Board.
2.

It is the allegation of the complainant that on the directions of the Electricity Board, the estimate was prepared by the JE and thereafter, she was asked to contact the OP-Gupta Electricals for the purchase of necessary appliances i.e., transformer, poles, wire and other material, consequently she contacted the OP, who demanded the amount of Rs. 2,49,110/- from her being the cost of transformer, wires, poles and transportation charges etc. The complainant made the payment of Rs. 2,39,100/- on 25.3.2008 to the opposite party.

3.

It is further the allegation of the complainant that she applied for connection under “OYT scheme” and spent huge amount on the assurance given by the Electricity Board. It is further the allegation of the complainant that she approached the opposite party, but the OP is delaying the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainant approached the Electricity Board with the request that she had deposited the amount but the OP has not complied with the directions of PSEB.

4.

It is further the grouse of the complainant that the OP had charged excess amount from him. That the detail of the appliances alongwith actual cost and excess amount charged had been given vide para no. 5 of the complaint.
5.

It is further the case of the complainant that the OP is guilty of unfair trade practices. The complainant made a request to the OP to refund the excess amount of Rs. 92,002/-, but of no avail, hence this complaint.
6.

The opposite party filed the reply. The preliminary objections vis-a-vis that PSEB is the necessary party and maintainability were raised. On merits, the claim put forth by the complainant has been denied. It is replied that the complainant has no claim against the replying OP as she has failed to get the route of the transmission line to the tubewell over the house of Tarsem Singh son of Narain Singh of village Haidrowal, Tehsil and District Hoshiarpur. The replying OP made a request to the complainant either to get the route from the concerned XEN/SE amended or pursuade Sh. Tarsem Singh to allow the opposite party to get the transmission line crossed from the transformer to the tubewell. Since Sh. Tarsem Singh is not allowing to cross the transmission line over his premises, as such the delay occurred in affixing the poles. The complainant has also failed to get the line map amended or pursuade Tarsem Singh to allow the opposite party to cross the transmission line over his premises. The complainant is not entitled to the amount of Rs. 92,002/-.
7.

In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex. C-1, supplementary affidavit - Ex. C-2, copy of he receipt of Rs. 2,39,100/- dated 31.1.2008 – Mark C-3, copy of price list – Mark C-4, copy of the amount charged by the OP dated 20.3.2008 – Mark C-5, newspaper clipping – Mark C-6, pamphlet – Mark C-7, copies of newspaper clippings – Mark C-8 to Mark C-10, affidavit of Tarsem Singh – Ex. AX and closed the evidence.
8.

In rebuttal, the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Naveen Gupta – Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the opposite party.
9.

The parties filed written arguments. We have gone through the written submissions and record of the file minutely.
10.

Admittedly, the complainant applied for tubewell connection under “OYT Scheme” with the PSEB. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant deposited the amount of Rs. 27,500/- on 13.2.2008 with the Electricity Board. The grouse of the complainant is that on the directions of the Electricity Board, the estimate was prepared by the officials of the PSEB, and thereafter, she was asked to contact the opposite party for the purchase of necessary appliances i.e., transformer, poles, wires and other material, consequently, she contacted the opposite party and paid the amount of Rs. 2,39,110/- on 25.3.2008 towards the cost of transformer, wires, poles and transportation charges etc. It is further the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party has charged the excess amount from her. The request was made to Gupta Electricals-OP to refund the excess amount of Rs. 92,002/-, but of no avail. The opposite party has raised the defence that the request was made to the complainant either to get the route from the concerned XEN/SE amended or persuade Sh. Tarsem Singh to allow the opposite party to get the transmission line crossed over his premises. It is denied that the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs. 92,002/-.
11.

The complainant has filed on record the affidavit of Tarsem Singh – Ex. AX, wherein he has stated that he never raised any objection regarding the tubewell connection of the complainant. The said affidavit filed by the complainant goes unrebutted, therefore, it is held that the defence raised by the opposite party that Tarsem is not allowing to cross the transmission line over his premises, goes to the ground.
12.

Now, the only point which calls determination from this Forum is whether the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs. 92,002/- ?
13.

The complainant has filed on record the estimated cost of the appliances/items – Mark C-4. The complainant has also placed on record the detail of the items alongwith costs qua Mark C-5. The close scrutiny of Mark C-4 and Mark C-5 makes it clear that the opposite party has charged the excess amount of the appliances/items from the complainant. This being so, the opposite party is liable to refund the excess amount charged from the complainant.
14.

As a result of the above discussion, the complaint of the complainant is accepted and the opposite party is directed to charge the price of the appliances/articles as specified qua Mark C-4 and refund the excess amount charged from the complainant. Litigation expenses are assessed at Rs. 1,000/- to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within a period of 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order.