The complainant submitted that since no connection was provided, she applied for a refund on October 14, 2024, after submitting all the documents sought by the authorities. She stated that despite repeated personal visits, phone calls, emails and written representations, the authorities failed to process the refund. Kapoor further submitted that she approached the Right to Service Commission, Chandigarh, and also lodged grievances on the Government’s CPGRAMS portal but received only vague responses.

She further pleaded that during the pendency of the matter, she received only a partial refund of Rs 1,103 on July 18, 2025, leaving a balance amount of Rs 7,127 unpaid. According to the complaint, further representations and legal notices also failed to yield any result. She alleged that the failure of the authorities to refund the balance amount despite continuous follow-up for over one-and-a-half years constituted “gross negligence and deficiency in service”, causing financial loss, inconvenience and mental harassment.

The Commission noted that MC Chandigarh and the Executive Engineer, B&R Department, failed to file their written version within the statutory period despite being granted opportunities, following which their defence was struck off. The Executive Engineer, Public Health/Water Supply Department, also failed to contest the complaint and was proceeded against ex parte.

The Bench observed that it was undisputed that the complainant had deposited Rs 8,230 for the proposed water connection, which was never provided as it was found to be technically unfeasible. It also noted that despite repeated representations, legal notices and grievances before various authorities, the refund was not made within a reasonable time.

During the proceedings, the Commission noted, the authorities refunded the amount in instalments. While Rs 1,103 had been credited on July 18, 2025, the MC later placed on record a communication showing that another Rs 4,890 had been credited to the complainant. Kapoor admitted receipt of the amount in her written submissions but maintained that Rs 2,237 still remained unpaid.

“The record clearly establishes that although the MC Chandigarh, and its departments) accepted the application and collected the requisite charges, they failed to verify the technical feasibility of providing the water connection before accepting the amount. If the proposed connection was not feasible, the authorities ought not to have accepted the application and charges in the first place. Their own failure cannot be made a ground to retain the complainant’s money for nearly two years,” the Commission observed.

It further held, “The retention of a consumer’s money without rendering the promised service amounts to deficiency in service. Further, unjustified delay in refunding the amount despite repeated requests also amounts to unfair and arbitrary conduct.”

The Commission also observed that “the subsequent refund of substantial amount during the pendency of the proceedings clearly establishes that the claim of the complainant was genuine. However, such belated refund cannot absolve the OPs (opposite parties) of their liability for the prolonged delay and the harassment suffered by the complainant.”

Partly allowing the complaint, the Commission directed the Municipal Corporation and its officials to refund the remaining Rs 2,237 to the complainant and pay a lump sum compensation of Rs 10,000 towards the harassment caused as well as litigation expenses.