State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs Dharmaraj on 3 December, 2009
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 Pon. GUNASEKARAN B.A.,B.L., MEMBER - I F.A.NO.303/2006 (Against order in C.C.No.54/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Perambalur) DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER 2009 The Assistant Engineer (Elec) Operation and Maintenance Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Tha. Pazhoor Appellant / Opposite party Vs. Dharmaraj S/o. Sivasamy Kodamgudi Udayarpalayam Taluk Respondent / Complainant The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the Appellant/ opposite party praying for the direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.25000/- towards compensation. The District Forum allowed the complaint with a direction to restore the electricity service connection alongwith compensation of Rs.2000/- and cost of Rs.1000/-. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.06.04.2006 in CC No.54/2005. This appeal petition coming before us for hearing finally on 27.11.2009. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on either side, this commission made the following order: Counsel for the Appellant/ Opposite party : M/s. N. Saravanan, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent /Complainant: M/s. R.Balasubramaniam, Advocate M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT 1.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, Perambalur, in OP.No.54/2005, the opposite party preferred this appeal before this Commission.
2. The complainant having service connection in his name consumed electricity from the opposite party, from the year 2000.
Unfortunately, the electric wire, got damaged on 23.5.2005, and therefore to rectify the same, the complainant approached the opposite party, seeking reconnection, there was no proper reply. In order to have effective remedy, he approached Legal Aid Committee of Jayankondam District Munsif Court, wherein the opposite party also agreed to reconnect the service connection, but failed to do so. Thus aggrieved, having no other way, being a consumer, he approached the consumer Forum, seeking direction to rectify the service connection, reconnecting the same, as well for compensation for the alleged mental agony and suffering.
3. The appellant / opposite party, have filed the written version, contending that on complaint, when the department people had been to the spot, to give reconnection it was objected by one Kamalakannan, because of the dispute with himself and the complainant's family, that though the department people have sought for police side by preferring complaint, protection was not given, and therefore, they are unable to give connection immediately, that before the Legal Aid, the complainant and Kamalakannan family have agreed to settle the dispute and because of the same delay had occurred, for which the opposite party cannot be held responsible, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The District Forum, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that there was abnormal delay not in reconnecting the electricity service connection to the complainant's house, and the non-restoration of electricity service to the complainant's house, amounts to deficiency in service, and thus concluding a direction has been given to restore the electricity connection as well to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- towards compensation, in addition to Rs.1000/- as cost, which is under challenge before us.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for either side as well as perused the written submission made, documents relied on by them and the order of the District Forum.
6. On 18.11.2009, when the matter was taken up for hearing, this commission felt that there is no defect in the direction issued by the District Forum, ordering to reconnect the service connection, and therefore this Commission suggested to the learned counsel for appellant, to find out whether connection has been given if not whether the appellant/ opposite party is willing to give reconnection, then leaving the matter of compensation, to be decided b this Commission. Responding to the above suggestion, the matter appears to have been informed to the authorities concerned, and the authority also restored the service connection of the complainant on 24.11.2009, and to that effect a memo also has been filed on 27.11.2009, which was recorded. But the dispute regarding the compensation continuous, and therefore this commission is expected to decide only the quantum of compensation in this case.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend, that the delay caused, whatever may be, was not due to any slackness on the part of the opposite party, whereas it was due to the dispute between the complainant and one Kamalakannan, and therefore reconnection was not possible at that stage. It is also the case of the appellant that seeking protection, police complaint also has been lodged, and since no protection has been given, the delay was caused. The above submission cannot be ignored, though it was urged that the complainant is entitled to damage, because there was inordinate delay.
8. Admittedly, even as pleaded in the complaint, in view of the dispute between the complainant and one Kamalakannan, who objected reconnection, a mediation had taken place before the Legal Aid Centre, at Jayamkondam District Munsif Court premises, which also has not yielded any positive result. It is also borne out by record (Ex.B1) that the authorities have addressed the Inspector of Police, seeking protection, apprehending some danger, while reconnecting the service connection, to the complainant's house, and there was no proper response. Thus, it is made out, the Electricity department has taken all necessary steps to reconnect the service connection, but it was thwarted by an action taken by Kamalakannan, for which we cannot squarely held responsible, as if the opposite party had committed deficiency in service. Because of the external problems, the delay has been caused, thereby compelling the complainant to the knock the doors of the Consumer Forum seeking redressal. When the suggestion had emanated from this Commission, it was readily accepted, and without any further problem or further steps to be taken by the complainant, such as filing Execution petition etc., reconnection was given, which is also admitted by the complainant. In view of the above change of circumstances, we feel it may not be proper to direct the opposite parties to pay the compensation, which comes to Rs.2000/-.
Hence, we are inclined to allow the appeal for the purpose of modifying the compensation.
9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, and the order of the District Forum, Perambalur, dt.6.4.2006 , directing the opposite parties to pay the compensation of Rs.2000/- alone is set aside, otherwise, confirming the order, recording reconnection of service. There will be no order as to cost in this appeal.
PON GUNASEKARAN M. THANIKACHALAM MEMBER-I PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/mtj/ Electricity Board