State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Executive Engineer [O & M],Tamil ... vs K. Devaraj,Muniappankoil ... on 26 April, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru.J.Jayaram, M.A., M.L., JUDICIAL MEMBER
Thiru.S.Sambandam, B.Sc., MEMBER II F.A.501/2008 [Against order in C.C.No.10/2006 on the file of the DCDRF, Erode] DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF APRIL 2011
1. The Executive Engineer [O & M], | Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, | Varnapuram, | Bhavani. | |
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer [O & M], | Appellants / Opposite Parties Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, | Bargure Road, Opp to: High School, | Anthiyur, Bhavani Taluk. | |
3. The Superintending Engineer, | Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, | Erode 638 009. | |
4. The Superintendent, | Gobi Electricity Distribution, | Gobichettipalayam. | Vs. K. Devaraj, | Respondent / Complainant S/o. Kalia Gounder, | Muniappankoil Thottam, HoH | Ennamangalam, Anthiyur Via., | Bhavani Taluk 638 501. | The respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the appellants/opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.2 lakhs towards agricultural loss, to pay Rs.2 lakhs towards mental agony, sufferings, to pay Rs.10,0000/- towards medical expenses and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost. The District Forum allowed the complaint, against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.14.02.2008 in C.C.10/2006.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 08.04.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the either counsels and perused the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellants / OPs : Mr.N.Saravanan., Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Mr.N. Manokaran, Advocate.
M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The opposite parties are the appellants.
2. The respondent/complainant approached the District Forum, Erode, seeking a direction that he should be given service connection on the basis of well changing as well as he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.4 lakhs, not only for loss of agricultural income, but also for mental agony, since the opposite parties have failed to give service connection, though he had applied for service connection on 06.11.89, as well paid a sum of Rs.50/- on 06.05.2003 for well changing, which should be construed as deficiency in service.
3. The opposite parties, admitting the application given by the complainant on 6.11.89, resisted the complaint, contending that the verification revealed a joint service connection was given for the common well already and therefore, cancelled the application, that at present, as per the direction issued by the Chief Engineer, they are willing to give service connection, based upon seniority and as such, since the seniority of the complainants application has not reached, there is no question of giving service connection out of turn, failure cannot be faulted as deficiency in service, praying for the dismissal of the case.
4. The District Forum by its order dated 14.02.2008, directed the opposite party to provide electricity, to the complainants bore well under Well Changing Scheme as well as to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards compensation, which is under challenge.
5. The complainant was having a share in the common well, situated in Survey No.223/2 and adjacent to the said number, he is owning Survey No.223/1 at Muniappankoil Thottam. In order to irrigate his field, he had applied for service connection, to be installed for the open well on 06.11.89. But so far, service connection was not given admittedly. It seems, one Srinivasan, who is also the joint owner of the well, applied for well change and obtained service connection in the year 1997. Quoting the same and complaining that same procedure was not followed in his case, a consumer complaint was filed, which is accepted to some extent, which is under challenge.
6. An agriculturist/complainant cannot claim, as of right immediate service connection, though he is entitled to have the service connection for irrigation and it would depend upon the seniority, which is controlled by rules and regulations of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. No rule was brought to our notice, that an agriculturist is entitled to service connection forthwith. When the complainant had applied on 6.11.89 in the ordinary quota as others, then he has to wait for his seniority to reach. If the seniority was overlooked or if any person has been given connection in the ordinary course, after his application, then only he can question the conduct of the opposite parties as if, they have committed negligent act or ignored the claim of the complainant, bringing the act within the meaning of deficiency in service. Even as pleaded in Para 4, which is also admitted in the Written Version, Mr.Srinivasan applied for well change, accepted and on that basis, service connection was given, which cannot be taken as precedent for the complainant.
Admittedly, the application dated 6.11.89 though cancelled, revived, and the same seniority is now maintained. His request for well changing is not numbered. We do not have any application also evidencing the request for well changing, though he might have applied for service connection. This being the position, when the opposite parties are maintaining the seniority and when there is no question of priority for the complainant, the Consumer Forum cannot order to give service connection, under well changing scheme, for that, there is a procedure, to be followed and the Consumer Forum cannot take that role.
7. The Chief Engineer has directed or recommended to issue service connection, but the opposite parties failed, is the grievance, placing reliance upon Ex.A1. By going through this document, we are unable to find any such direction or recommendation. As said above, originally the application of the complainant was dismissed, and when he complained to the higher authorities, direction has been issued, to consider the case of the complainant, probably keeping the seniority. On that basis, the Executive Engineer has informed to the complainant, that as per the seniority in the ordinary course, upto 31.12.88, applications are considered and as and when the seniority of the complainant comes, his request will be considered, which is repeated under Ex.A2 also. We are not provided with well change application and therefore, there is no question of converting the original application, dated 6.11.89 under the Well Changing Scheme. In the Written Version also, the opposite parties have made it very clear, that the case of the complainant for service connection will be considered, on the basis of the seniority and as on this date, the seniority has reached only upto 31.12.88. This being the position, the District Forum has no jurisdiction to order service connection out of turn, overlooking the seniority, based upon any other consideration, unless the claim of the complainant comes under any other priority scheme, which is not the case. If this kind of complaint from the agriculturist or anybody, is entertained, then the Consumer Forum will be taking the role of providing service connection, which will be detriment to the Electricity Board, offending the rules also, for which, we feel, Consumer Fora should not be the cause. The District Forum without considering the priority basis, as well as failing to record sufficient reason, for negligent act or deficiency in service since issued a direction, that should be upset. Hence, the appeal is meritorious, liable to be allowed.
8. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum in C.C.10/2006, dt.14.02.2008 is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost throughout.
9. The Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt, made towards the mandatory deposit, to the appellants/ opposite parties duly discharged, since appellants succeeded, and there is no need to retain the FDR.
S. SAMBANDAM J. JAYARAM M.THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Ns/mtj/EB