D.Sivakumar filed a consumer case on 08 Dec 2022 against Asst. Engineer, Vigilence Section, TNEB & 2 Ors. in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/254/2017 and the judgment uploaded on 13 Apr 2023.
IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
BEFORE : Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH PRESIDENT
Thiru R VENKATESAPERUMAL MEMBER
F.A.NO.254/2017
(Against order in CC.NO.15/2014 on the file of the DCDRC, Thiruvarur)
DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF DECEBER 2022
D. Sivakumar
S/o. M. Durairaj
No.30, Lakshmi Nagar M/s. V.Shankar
Bommannanpalayam Amicus Curiae for
Coimbatore – 641 046 Appellant / Complainant
Vs.
1. Assistant Engineer
Vigilance Section, TNEB
No.1, Thanjavur Vallam Road
Thanjavur Electric Distribution Circle
Thanjavur – 613 007
2. Assistant Engineer
Operation & Maintenance
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
Kumbakonam
3. Assistant Engineer M/s. K. Kamalakannan
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Standing counsel for
Alangudi, Valangaiman Taluk Respondents / Opposite parties
The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant praying set aside the order of the District Commission dt.24.3.2015 in CC.No.15/2014.
This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on bothside and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:
ORDER
JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT (Open court)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ complainant as against the order dt.24.3.2015 in CC.No.15/2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvarur in dismissing the complaint filed by the complainant herein.
2. The brief facts which are necessary to decide the appeal is as follows:
The complainant is a senior citizen, having 3 acres of agricultural land at Valangaiman Taluk in the name of his father late M.Durairaj. The complainant is carrying on agricultural activities on the said land. There is an electricity service connection in S.No.34 in the said land. Since there is a menace of rats in the field and which are causing damages to the crops, in order to prevent the same, the complainant encircled the field with the electrified wire. While so, the officials of the opposite party department, came for inspection and had imposed penalty of Rs.12,580/- towards compensation charges and Rs.1000/- towards compounding charges. But the collection of the said amount is not lawful. The opposite parties came to know in the case of another agriculturist by name Gnanaprakasam, who consumed electricity from the borewell of one Sakthivel, the anti-power theft squad had assessed Rs.60000/- for reconnection in a biased manner. Subsequently, the complainant came to know through RTI Act, that only Rs.7120/- towards compounding charge was collected. Therefore, the amount collected from the complainant towards penalty @ Rs.13580/- is arbitrary. Thus alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission, praying for a direction to the opposite parties to refund the sum of Rs.13,580/- towards amount collected from him, and to pay a sum of Rs.72000/- collected towards loss in paddy cultivation alongwith compensation of Rs.1 lakh.
3. The said complaint was resisted by the opposite party, by filing their version as follows:
There was an unauthorized usage of electricity by the complainant. As per Sec.22A of Tamil Nadu Electricity Act for tampering of meters and theft of electricity, penalty was imposed and he was also served with the working sheet on 19.7.2013. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their part, and thus sought for dismissal of the complaint.
4. In order to prove the complaint, proof affidavits were filed on either side, alongwith documents, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A13 on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1on the side of the opposite party.
5. The District Commission, after analyzing the entire evidence, had dismissed the complaint, stating that absolutely there is no deficiency of service. Aggrieved against the said order, the present appeal is filed by the complainant.
6. Having considered the submissions made, we are of the considered opinion that the complaint itself is not maintainable before this commission. The complainant has not made out any cause of action to file a complaint before this commission. The issue involved in this case is unauthorized usage of electricity energy by the complainant, which dispute has to be decided before the appropriate forum having jurisdiction, and not before this commission. The filing of present complaint is nothing but mere abuse of process of law. Therefore, this complaint was rightly dismissed by the District Commission. Though this complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost, by taking lenient view, we are refraining from doing so. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the order of the District Commission, Tiruvarur, in CC.No.15/2014 dt.24.3.2015. There is no order as to cost in this appeal.
R VENKATESAPERUMAL R. SUBBIAH
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.