Tamil Nadu

Ariyalur

CC/2/2022

Senthamilselvan, S/o. Manikkam - Complainant(s)

Versus

1)JE,TNEB, Tha Pallur,Udaiyarpalaiyam vattam,Ariyalur - Opp.Party(s)

PalaniMuthu M.A.M.L.,

14 Mar 2023

ORDER

Complaint taken on file: 04.03.2022

    Order delivered on: 14.03.2023

BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ARIYALUR

PRESENT: Dr.V.Ramaraj M.L, Ph.D: President

Mr.N.Balu B.A, B.L: Member – I

Mrs.V.Lavanya B.A, B.L: Member – II

Consumer Complaint No. 2/2022

Monday, the fourteenth day of March, 2023

 

Senthamil Selvan, S/o. Manickam, Kudikadu street, Kaduvettankurichi Post, Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District – 621 805                                                                                                                                                                …               Complainant

          -Vs-

 

1. Junior Engineer, Operation & Maintenance (Rural), TANGEDCO, T.Palur,    Udayarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District

 

 

2. Assistant Engineer, Operation & Maintenance (Rural), TANGEDCO, Jayankodam,  Ariyalur District

 

3. Executive Engineer, Operation & Maintenance, TANGEDCO, Ariyalur District

 

4. Superintendent Engineer, Operation & Maintenance, TANGEDCO, North Mathavi Road, Perambalur                                                   

 

                                              … Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Complainant: M/s. R. Palanimuthu

Counsel for the opposite Parties: M/s. T.A. Kathiravan (Government Pleader)

The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties claiming a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- towards monetary loss, mental agony, mental stress, mental depression, mental disharmony and physical sufferings and the consequent expenses caused to him because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and a cost of Rs.10,000/-.

 

ORDER

Pronounced by Mr.N.Balu: Member-I

Adopted by Dr.V.Ramaraj: President

 Mrs.V.Lavanya: Member-II

 

 The facts of the complaint in brief:

 

1.           The complainant applied to the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties who work under the supervision of the 4^th opposite party for a service connection to his borewell as per the rules framed by the Government of Tamilnadu. That application was accepted and a 3 phase 10 HP service connection was provided in Service Connection Number: 691. The complainant again made a Thatkal application seeking conversion of the same connection No: 691 into a 3 phase 15 HP to the opposite parties which was accepted by the opposite parties. As the opposite parties ordered the complainant to remit Rs.4,00,000/- for the same purpose, the complainant remitted the same amount to the 3^rd opposite party on 31.10.2019.

 

2.           The opposite parties failed to convert the Service connection of complainant’s borewell from 3 phase 10 HP service to 3 phase 15 HP service within the stipulated time but were passing the time saying an excuse that they would have to prepare the estimation for installing the electric posts whereas the distance from transformer to complainant’s land is only 50 metres. Hence, the complainant sent a complaint by way of registered post to the opposite parties which was received by the opposite parties. The complainant again sent a complaint on 18.05.2021. As the opposite parties did not take any step to provide the particular service connection, the complainant participated in the Grievance Redressal meeting held at Peramblur TANGEDCO office on 13.09.2021 and conveyed the above grievance against the opposite parties. The opposite parties represented that the applied service connection was provided as early as on 01.04.2021 itself to the complainant and thereby the complaint was closed.

 

3.           The Grievance Redressal Board at Perambalur failed to consider the oral and documentary evidences adduced by the complainant on the point that the applied service was not provided till 31.03.2021. Hence, the complainant preferred an appeal against that order before the Tamilnadu Electricity Ombudsman, Guindy, Chennai in Appeal No. 77/2021. As the Ombudsman sent a letter to the complainant on 05.10.2021 asking the complainant to appear and represent his case in the video conference meeting to be held on 18.11.2021. The complainant participated along with the opposite parties in video conference mode and adduced evidence.

 

4.           The opposite parties have provided a free service connection to one Rajendran for his borewell in the nearby area without seeking any estimate. The complainant has applied in Thatkal scheme seeking to convert his existing connection into 3 phase 15 HP connection. The opposite parties have failed to provide the applied service connection from the High-Tension Transformer but have urgently provided free service connection to neighbour Rajendran. The opposite parties have purposefully delayed to convert the complainant’s service connection from 10 HP capacity to 15 HP capacity.

 

5.            The complainant had to spend money every time to visit the office of the opposite parties. The complainant had borrowed the deposit amount of Rs.4,00,000/- for 3% interest and hence he has been paying an interest amount of Rs.12,000/- to the financiers every month. In fact, the applied service connection was provided by the opposite parties on 01.10.2021 only. The complainant has incured an expenditure of Rs.20,00,000/- and has become physically week and has suffered severe mental agony.

 

6.           Therefore, the complainant is seeking a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- towards monetary loss, mental agony, mental stress, mental depression, mental disharmony and physical sufferings and the consequent expenses caused to him because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and to award Rs.10,000/- as cost of this litigation.

 

 The facts of Written version of the opposite parties in brief:

 

7.           The complainant has got a III A-1 Agricultural Service connection with 10 HP capacity from the opposite parties on 30.07.2019 and has been utilising it to irrigate his lands. The complainant utilised the Thatkal scheme announced by the Government in 2019-2020 and applied for capacity enhancement of his service connection from 10 HP to 15 HP on 31.10.2019.

 

8.           As the complainant was asking to convert his 10 HP service connection, it was not possible for the opposite parties to convert the line from the transformer. Hence, it took some time for the opposite parties make the estimation and find the suitable transformer. Then necessary permission was obtained to enhance the capacity of the nearby transformer and after that, the applied service was provided to the complainant on 01.04.2021.  

 

9.           The complainant’s name was in 28^th place in the seniority list in Thatkal scheme for the year 2019-2020 and hence all the persons who stood before him in the seniority list were provided the applied connection with necessary extension of lines and necessary procurement of other materials. The complainant’s existing 10 HP line was removed and a 15 HP new agricultural service connection was provided from a different transformer. These are the reasons for the delay in providing the applied connection to the complainant.

 

10.           The complainant opposed to give new free service connection to his neighbour Rajendran saying that since he had paid Rs.4,00,000/- under Thatkal scheme, he should be preferred first. He approached the Grievance Redressal commission at Perambalur where his complaint was dismissed stating that the applied service had already been provided to the complainant on 01.04.2021. Then he preferred an appeal at the Tamilnadu Electricity Ombudsman at Guindy, Chennai and the appeal in Appeal No.77/2021 was also dismissed on 21.02.2022.

 

11.           The complainant was well aware that he stood at 28^th place in Thatkal scheme of 2019-2020 and he wilfully applied under that scheme. But his neighbour Rajendran applied in New Veeranam scheme where there was no competition as a result of which the project estimation was done without any delay and his free service connection was provided on 08.01.2021. There is no enmity or vengeance for the opposite parties with the complainant as claimed by him. Hence, the opposite parties pray to dismiss the complaint.

 

12.            The complainant has filed his proof affidavit and has marked Ex. A-1 to Ex. A-5. The 1^st opposite party, Mr.Ilayaraja has submitted his proof affidavit on behalf of all the opposite parties and have marked Ex. B-1 to B-3.

 

            Point to be considered:

 

     Whether the complaint is maintainable under law and on merits or has to be    dismissed as claimed by the opposite parties?

 

13.             Since the opposite parties have raised some serious issues with regard to the maintainability of the complaint, this commission decides to discuss and decide the issue of maintainability of the complaint first. The complainant has prayed to award a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakh) against the opposite parties towards monetary loss, mental agony, mental stress, mental depression, mental disharmony and physical sufferings and the consequent expenses caused to him because of the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

 

14.            This commission wants to decide first whether the opposite parties have committed any deficiency in their service. The contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties provided free service connection to his neighbour Rajendran without seeking any estimate whereas the complainant had applied in Thatkal scheme by paying Rs.4,00,000/- seeking to convert his existing 10 HP connection into 15 HP connection. His further contention is that they urgently provided free service connection to neighbour Rajendran and have  purposefully delayed the to convert the complainant’s service connection from 10 HP capacity to 15 HP capacity.

 

15.           This commission wants to find out whether the statement of the complainant is true or not. The complainant has submitted the receipt for RS.4,00,000 as Ex. A-1, his complaint sent to the 4^th opposite party on 23.02.2021 as Ex. A-2, the explanation letter sent by the 2^nd opposite party for the complaint of the complainant dated 30.03.2021 as Ex. A-3, the order issued by the Perambalur grievance redressal board as Ex. A-4, the order given by Tamilnadu Electricity Ombudsman, Guindy, Chennai in the appeal preferred by the complainant as Ex. A-5. The opposite parties have not denied any of the above evidences of the complainant. but they say that they have not committed any deficiency in their service.
16.            The opposite parties have also submitted the same Ex. A-4 as their side document as Ex. B-1, the same Ex. A-5 as Ex. B-2 and a lay out sketch as Ex. B-3. The contention of the opposite parties is that there is no deficiency on their part. The complainant’s name was in 28^th place in the seniority list in Thatkal scheme for the year 2019-2020 and hence all the persons who stood before him in the seniority list were provided the applied connection with necessary extension of lines and necessary procurement of other materials. The complainant’s existing 10 HP line was removed and a 15 HP new agricultural service connection was provided from a different transformer. These are the reasons for the delay in providing the applied connection to the complainant.

 

17.           The opposite parties further state that the complainant opposed to give a new free agricultural service connection to his neighbour Rajendran and claimed that since he had paid Rs.4,00,000/- under Thatkal scheme, he should be given preference. He approached the Grievance Redressal commission at Perambalur where his complaint was dismissed stating that the applied service had already been provided to the complainant on 01.04.2021. Then he preferred an appeal at the Tamilnadu Electricity Ombudsman at Guindy, Chennai and the appeal in Appeal No.77/2021 was also dismissed on 21.02.2022.

 

18.            The opposite parties further state that the complainant was well aware that he stood at 28^th place in Thatkal scheme of 2019-2020 but he wilfully preferred to apply under that scheme. But his neighbour Rajendran applied in New Veeranam scheme where there was no competition and hence the project estimation was done without any delay and his free service connection was provided on 08.01.2021. There is no enmity or vengeance for the opposite parties with the complainant as claimed by him. Therefore, this commission concludes that there is no merit in the complaint. Hence, the point is answered as follows: The complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

 

As a result, this commission passes the following ORDER:

 

(1). This complaint is dismissed as not proved.

 

            (2).   No cost.

 

  This Order was dictated by me to the steno, today the fourteenth day of March, 2023, was taken notes in short-hand and then typed in computer and corrected and was pronounced by us in the open commission today.

  

 

 

             Member -I                                      Member – II                                    President

 

Witnesses examined by the complainant: M. Senthamil Selvan (the complainant)

Witness examined by the opposite parties: Ilayaraja (the 2^nd opposite party)

 

Documents marked by the Complainant:

S.No.	Date	Description of Document	Remarks
A-1	31.10.2019	Receipt issued by the office of the 4th opposite party	Xerox copy
A-2	23.02.2021	The complaint sent to the 4th opposite party	Xerox copy
A-3	18.05.2021	The explanation reply sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant	Xerox copy
A-4	13.09.2021	The order issued by the grievance redressal board at Perambalur	Xerox copy
A-5	05.10.2021	The order passed by the Tamilnadu Electricity Ombudsman, Chennai	Xerox copy

 

 

Documents marked by the 3^rd Opposite party:

S.No.	Date	Description of Document	Remarks
B-1	13.09.2021	The order issued by the grievance redressal board at Perambalur	Xerox copy
B-2	05.10.2021	The order passed by the Tamilnadu Electricity Ombudsman, Chennai	Xerox copy
B-3	-	Lay out sketch	Xerox copy

 

 

 

Member - I                                         Member – II                                             President