State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Tamilnadu Electricity Board, ... vs P.N. Satagopan, S/O.Late. P. ... on 16 April, 2014
IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MADURAI BENCH.
Present: THIRU.J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
TMT.P. BAKIYAVATHY, MEMBER
F.A.No.341/2012
(F.A.No.1134/2011 on the file of State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Chennai.)
(Against the order in C.C.No.36/2011, dated 31.10.2011 on the file of DCDRF,
Tiruchirappalli)
THIS WEDNESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF APRIL 2014.
1. The Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
Represented by the Superintending Engineer,
TEDC - METRO, Mannarpuram,
Trichy - 620 020.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
O & M, Urban, Tennur.
Trichy - 620 017.
3. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
O & M, Rockfort, Tennur,
Trichy - 620 017.
4. The Assistant Engineer,
Tamilnadu Electricity Board,
O & M - Main Guard Gate, Tennur,
Trichy - 620 017. Appellants/Opposite parties
Vs
P.N. Satagopan,
S/o.Late. P. Narasimhalu Naidu,
Door No.12, Samaspiran Street,
Tiruchirappalli - 620 008. Respondent/Complainant
2
Counsel for Appellants/opposite parties : Mr. M. Mohan Babu, Advocate.
Counsel for Respondent/Complainant : Served. Called absent.
This appeal coming before us for final hearing today on 16.04.2014 and
on hearing the arguments of the appellant and upon perusing the material
records this Commission made the following:
ORDER
THIRU. J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Forum, Tiruchirappalli, in C.C.No.36/2011, dated 31.10.2011, allowing the complaint.
2. The case of the complainant is that he was having electricity connection including service connection No.206-003-293 which was disconnected on 16.07.2008 itself even before purchasing the building and the opposite parties were insisting on the complainant to pay the arrear charges for the disconnected service connection which caused mental agony and suffering and inconvenience to the complainant. Further, when the representative of the complainant went to the TNEB office, the concerned cashier refused to accept the payment and so the complainant purchased bank draft and remitted the charges which caused mental agony to the complainant. All these amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint.
3. According to the opposite parties, the complainant did not hand over the meter used by the previous owner and as per the Board's instructions, the 3 opposite parties took steps for recovery of the meter and payment of the consumption charges to be paid by the current consumer. The complainant was running a school in the premises without physical segregation from his residential building and the service connection No.206-003-293 was disconnected for non payment of consumption charges on 16.07.2008 after duly serving notice and after following the procedures and rules. There is no deficiency in service on their part.
4. The District Forum considered rival contentions and passed an order holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties pertaining to the service connection No.206-003-293 and preventing the opposite parties to collect the dues in respect of this service connection and to pay costs of Rs.1000/- to the complainant and further holding that the complainant is not entitled for any other relief. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal.
5. The District Forum has stated in para 17 of the order as follows:
"While answering the point No.1, that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties pertaining to the Service Connection No.206-003-293. So, the opposite parties are prevented to collect the dues in respect of the above said Service Connection. The opposite parties are directed to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of this complaint and there is no order for compensation." Further, the District Forum, in para 18 of the order has stated as follows: " In the result, the complaint is allowed with cost of 4 Rs.1000/-; (2) the opposite parties are prevented to collect the dues in respect of the service connection No.206-003-293; (3) The complainant is not entitled for other reliefs."
6. Admittedly, a Writ Petition is pending before the Hon'ble High Court and the District Forum has referred to the Writ Petition and has stated as follows: "Again as admitted by both parties that a Writ Petition is pending before the High Court. In these circumstances, this Forum is not competent to give a verdict regarding the matter which is subjudice. Therefore, in respect of the Service Connection No.206-003-293, the opposite parties are prevented from collecting the dues."
7. It is significant to note that in para 15 of its order, the District Forum has stated as follows: "Therefore, the contention of the complainant that the opposite parties have made deficiency of service in Service Connection No.206- 003-293 is not proved." Thus observing that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, the District Forum in para 17 (Point No.2) of the order, per contra, the District Forum has given a finding that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties pertaining to the service connection No.206-003-293. Thus the observation and the finding are totally conflicting and there is infirmity in the order of the District Forum and the order cannot be sustained.
5
8. It is pertinent to note that impugned service connection was disconnected on 16.07.2008 itself, prior to purchase of the property by the complainant on 23.03.2009.
9. We have to note that the only prayer in the complaint is to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages for deficiency in service.
10. It is relevant to note that in the order of the District Forum, it is held that the complainant is not entitled to compensation or any other relief; but the opposite parties are directed to pay costs of Rs.1000/- to the complainant.
11. The complainant has not established his case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and we find no materials to hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs in this appeal.
13. The Registry is directed to hand over the Fixed Deposit Receipt made towards the mandatory deposit to the appellants/opposite parties duly discharged with accrued interest.
P. BAKIYAVATHI, J. JAYARAM, MEMBER. PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER. INDEX: YES / NO TCM/Mdu Bench/Orders- 2014/April