Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/289/2019

M.Muthanandan, S/o.Narayanasamy Mudaliar, No.130-B, Rajaveethi, Kurinjipadi. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Cuddalore-1.And 3 Others - Opp.Party(s)

PARTY IN PERSON

27 Feb 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble THIRU  JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  :     PRESIDENT

                 THIRU R   VENKATESAPERUMAL         :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 289 of 2019

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.54 of 2014 dated 26.08.2019 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F., Cuddalore.

 

Monday,  27^th day of February 2023

 

M. Muthanandan                                       

S/o. Narayanasamy Mudaliar

No.130-B, Rajaveethi

Kurinjipadi.                                               .. Appellant/Complainant

 

 

- Vs –

 

1.  The Superintending Engineer

     Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

     Cuddalore-1.

 

2.  The Assistant Divisional Engineer

     Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

     Vadakuthu, Kurinjipadi Taluk.

 

3.  The Divisional Electrical Engineer

     Electricity Production and

        Distribution Board

     Kurinjipadi. 

 

 

4.  The Junior Engineer

     Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

     Vadalur                                                .. Respondents/

Opposite parties

 

 

 For Appellant /Complainant     : Party-in-person

 

 Counsel for the Respondents/

Opposite parties                      : M/s.Hemalatha Gajapathy          

                                               (Undertaken)

                                               

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 10.11.2022, and on hearing the arguments of the Appellant in person and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

 

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

                This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as against the order dated 26.08.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore in C.C. No.54 of 2014, dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant herein. 

 

        2.  The case of the complainant before the District Forum is that he is residing at No.130-B Raja Veethi, Kurinjipadi.  The Electricity Service Connection No.108 in respect of the land in S.Nos.196/10, 196/11 and 196/14 at Karunguzhi Village, Kurinjipadi Taluk was standing in the name of his father Narayanasamy Mudaliar.  After the demise of his father, the complainant was in possession and enjoyment of the property and was paying the electricity bills all along, which stood in the name of his father.  Whileso, he came to know that Service Connection No.108 has been transferred to one A.Janardhanan, S/o.Alavanthar of Karunguzhi Village.  When the complainant approached the E.B Office on 22.03.2014, he was informed that the transfer was effected on 28.07.2011 itself and he was asked to produce connected documents within 7 days.  Without issuing notice to the original owner and without examining the connected documents, the transfer of service connection has been effected by the opposite parties.  Hence, on 07.04.2014 the complainant issued a notice to the 4^th opposite party stating that the transfer of service connection effected without notice is not valid and should be cancelled.  Even after repeated notices, there was no answer to the queries raised by the complainant, from the opposite parties. Hence, on 02.06.2014, the complainant issued a legal notice calling upon the opposite parties to cancel the transfer of service connection in the name of A.Janardhanan.  Though the said notice was received by the opposite parties, none of the opposite parties had come forward to cancel the service connection effected in the name of A.Janardhanan or to reply.  Therefore, alleging deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum, seeking the following directions to the opposite parties :-

1. to cancel the transfer of S.C No.108 in the name of A.Janardhanan without notice to the existing service holder Narayanasamy Mudaliar or to his legal heirs, effected by the respondents ;
2. to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss and mental agony; and
3. to award cost.

        3.  The said complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing a version stating that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.  The TANGEDCO, i.e. the opposite parties 1 to 4 are in no way connected or interested in the dispute between the complainant and the present service connection owner of Service Connecition No.108 A.Janardhanan.  The complainant has to work out his legal remedy against the said A.Janardhanan for the illegal transfer as alleged by him.  In the event of the complainant getting any favourable order, declaring the name transfer as illegal, the opposite parties would cancel the name transfer already made to the said A.Janardhanan.  Furthermore, the said A.Janardhanan has not been arrayed as an opposite party.  Hence, on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The petitioner has to work out his legal remedy only against the said A.Janardhanan and not against the opposite parties TANGEDCO.  The complainant cannot expect the opposite parties to hold a comprehensive enquiry with regard to providing service connection and effecting name transfer in the existing service connection.  Since the main objective and work of the opposite parties is to provide essential service of electricity to the consumers.  The 4^th opposite party branch has nearly 1000 service connection and their main job is only operation and maintenance of the branch.  Hence, there is no merit in the complaint and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

        4.  In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, along with proof affidavit 7 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to A7.  On the side of the opposite parties, only written Argument was filed.  Neither Proof Affidavit nor any documents were marked.

 

        5.  The District Forum, after analyzing the entire evidence and records, has dismissed the complaint since the complainant has failed to produce necessary documentary evidence such as death certificate, legal heir certificate of Narayanasamy Mudaliar.    Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant.

 

        6.  There is no representation for the opposite parties. Keeping in mind the submission made by the Appellant, in person, we have carefully gone through the entire material available on record. 

 

        7.  We find from the material on record, though originally the Service Connection No.108 stood in the name of the complainant’s father Narayanasamy Mudaliyar, after his demise the complainant was enjoying the service connection but he has not taken any efforts to transfer the same to his name.  Hence, in the year 2011, the service connection was transferred in the name of one A.Janardhanan. Now it is the contention of the Appellant/ complainant that without conducting any enquiry with him, the Respondents/opposite parties have transferred the service connection.   However, as observed by the District Forum, the Appellant/ complainant has not produced the legal heir certificate to show that he is the legal heir of the said Narayanasamy Mudaliyar.  In the absence of tangible evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum in dismissing the complaint.

 

        8.  Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.

 

 

R   VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                     R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                                                            PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/February/2023