Tamil Nadu

Thiruvallur

CC/59/2013

S.Krubakaran, s/o S.S.Subramaniyan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s TNEB, Pallipattu & 3 Others - Opp.Party(s)

M/s A.R.Poovannan

29 Dec 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
THIRUVALLUR
No.1-D, C.V.NAIDU SALAI, 1st CROSS STREET,
THIRUVALLUR-602 001
 
Complaint Case No. CC/59/2013
 
1. S.Krubakaran, s/o S.S.Subramaniyan,
No.33, Theradi st., Pallipattu-631207
 
BEFORE: 
  THIRU.K.JAYABALAN,B.Sc,B.L., PRESIDENT
  Tmt.S.Sujatha, B.Sc., MEMBER
  Mr.V.VENKATESAN, M.A., B.Ed., MBA.,M.Phil.,B.L MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:M/s A.R.Poovannan, Advocate
For the Opp. Party: E.Jagadeesan, Advocate
ORDER

THIRUMATHI.S. SUJATHA MEMBER-1

          This   complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties for praying this forum to direct the opposite parties to refund the estimate amount of Rs.19820/- and to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for the hardship, strain and mental agony caused to the complainant by the act of the opposite parties.

  1. The Case of the complainant is briefly as follows:-

      The complainant Mr. S.Krubakaran is having agricultural lands in Pudhupattu village, Pallipattu Taluk, Tiruvallur District and he was granted electricity supply free of cost by the Tamil Nadu Government in service connection No.3520-20-2299 in survey number 177/13 since the water level in the bore at survey No.177/13 fell down, the complainant digged another bore in nearby survey number 177/6B.  The complainant made an application with the 1st opposite party for shifting the above service connection to the new bore well.  An estimate of Rs.19820/- was prepared and the complainant was directed to pay a sum for shifting.  The complainant objected as the service was granted free of cost.  The opposite parties convinced the complainant that the deposit amount will be refunded at later stage.   The complainant paid the estimated amount.  The opposite parties utilized the existing materials in the old bore well place.

2.        The complainant approached the opposite parties for refund and after approaching the appellate authority he was refunded only Rs.1093/-.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint for refund of estimate amount and for the compensation against the opposite parties.

3.       The case of the opposite parties in brief as follows:

          The present complaint is not maintainable one in this case.  The complainant was on his own wish has shifted the service connection and has accepted to pay the estimate amount for shifting the connection through a letter dated 5.7.2010.  The opposite party has used only two transformers from the old connection due to the demand of the materials and other items are brand new one got form the society.   The amount collected was Rs.19,820/- and total expense was Rs.29097/- and has lesser Rs.10,370/- and so Rs.1093/- has been allotted to him as refund.  But even after intimation the complainant never turned up to collect the refund.  The opposite parties never committed any deficiency in service in respect of the complaint and also the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant in this regard. 

4        In proof of the allegation made in the complaint, the complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ex.A1, the copy of the demand notice dated 25.11.2010 from the complainant to the Opposite party No.1, Ex.A2, the copy of the payment receipt dated. 14.12.2010,  Ex.A3, the copy of the notice  dated 13.6.2011 to the Assistant Engineer TNEB,  Ex.A4. the copy of the notice dated.17.12.2012 to the Superintending Engineer TNEB, Ex.A5, the copy of the Petition dated. 10.1.2013 to the S.E. TNEB, Ex.A6, the copy of the notice dated 21.1.2013 by the complainant, Ex.A7, the copy of the notice dated. 27.2.2013, Ex.A8, the copy of acknowledgement card dated. 1.3.2013, Ex.A9, the copy of petition dated, 14.3.2013 to the S.E. TNEB, Ex.A10, the copy of notice dated. 5.6.2013 to the Public Information Officer, Ex.A11, the copy of acknowledgement  card dated. 7.6.2013, Ex.A12, the copy of notice dated. 10.6.13 bythe complainant ExA13, the copy of the appeal filed before the  appellate authority Public Information dated. 22.7.2013,  Ex.A14, the copy of reply from the Public  Information  Officer dated. 4.7.2013,  Ex.A15, the copy of reply  dated. 30.8.2013 by the S.E. TNEB.    In proof of the averments made in the written version the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 filed proof affidavit and marked ExB1, the copy of letter by the complainant to the opposite party- 1 dated nil., Ex.B2 the copy of of letter by the opposite party – 4 to the complainant dated. 30.8.2013,  Ex.B3, the copy of acknowledgment card, Ex.B4, the copy of letter by the T.N. Generation and Distribution Corporation Ltd. Dated. 7.1.2014.

5        Now the points for consideration are as follows:

  1. Whether  the complainant proves the deficiency in service against

the opposite parties in not refunding the estimate amount of Rs.19820/- to the complainant. ?

2.  whether the complainant is entitled to the damages as prayed for in

     the complaint and to what relief ?

6.     Point No.1 

The pivotal point that has to be considered whether  there was the amount deposited should be refunded to the complainant as it was a free service connection and the materials used was the same in the old connection.

The fact that the complainant was granted electricity supply to the bore well in survey No.177/2013 at free of cost by the Government of TamilNadu for small  farmers in service connection No.3520.20-2299 is not disputed and admitted by the opposite parties in their version and as well as in their proof affidavit.  

Further the application made by the complainant with the 1st opposite party for shifting the above service connection from survey No.177/2013 to survey No.177/6B was admitted by the opposite parties.

As a matter of fact the opposite party prepared an estimate and the complainant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.19820/- towards the cost of shifting and the complainant paid the estimated amount on 14.12.2010 vide receipt No.0324671

That is to say the opposite parties have admitted that while shifting the connection the existing materials were utilized as there was a demand for materials.

The opposite parties have not refunded the amount to the complainant after calculating the actual expenses and the value of things used, that should be deducted from the actual estimate.  

At this juncture the never expression of inconvenience by the opposite parties to the complainant itself cannot be allowed the opposite parties to shrink their legal obligations for not refunded the amount and that too only a meagre  sum of Rs.1093/- has been calculated as refund. 

As stated above, after perusal of the exhibits the opposite parties failed to refund the amount and only after a long struggle the opposite parties has replied a meagre amount of Rs.1093/- that too after the complainant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority TNEB, Kanchipuram.

It is evident that the complainant proves the deficiency of service against the opposite parties in respect of not refunding the amount.

6.    POINT NO.2

In the result the complaint is allowed.  The opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) towards  compensation for the mental agony and

deficiency in service and also to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards the cost of  proceedings to the complainant.

The above amount shall be payable within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% P.a. till the date of payment.

          Dictated directly by the Member-I to the Steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 29th day of December 2014.

Sd/-*******                                            Sd/-*******                             Sd/-*******

 MEMBER-I                                          MEMBER-II                        PRESIDENT

List of Complainant Documents:

Ex.A1- 25.11.2010- X-copy of demand notice from TNEB.

Ex.A2- 14.12.2010 - X-copy of receipt for the payment.

Ex.A3- 13.6.2011   - X-copy of notice to the Asst. Engineer TNEB.

Ex.A4- 17.12.2012 –X-copy of notice to the Superintending Engineer TNEB.

Ex.A5- 10.1.2013   - X-copy of petition to the S.E. TNEB.

Ex.A6- 21.1.2013   - X-copy of notice by the complainant.

Ex.A7- 27..2.2013  - X-copy of notice.

Ex.A8- 1.3.2013     -X-copy of Ack Card.

Ex.A9- 14.3.2013   - X-copy of petition to the SE, TNEB.

Ex.A10- 5.6.2013   - X-copy of notice  to the Public Information officer.

Ex.A11- 7.6.13       - X-copy of Ack. Card..

Ex.A12- 10.6.2013 -  X-copy of notice by the complainant. .

Ex.A13- 22.7.2013 – X-copy of appeal filed before the appellate authority,Public  Information.

Ex.A14- 4.7.2013   -   X-copy of reply from the public information officer.

Ex.A15-30.8.2013 –  X-copy of reply by the SE, TNEB.

Opposite parties document –

Ex.B1-               - X-copy of letter by the complainant to the opposite party.

Ex.B2-  30.8.2013  - X-copy of letter by the opposite party to the complainant.

Ex.B3-               - Acknowledgement Card.

Ex.B4-  7.1.14       - X-copy of letter by the T.N. Generation and Distribution

                                Corporation Ltd.

Sd/-*******                                   Sd/-*******                            Sd/-*******

MEMBER-I                                 MEMBER-II                           PRESIDENT

 
 
[ THIRU.K.JAYABALAN,B.Sc,B.L.,]
PRESIDENT
 
[ Tmt.S.Sujatha, B.Sc.,]
MEMBER
 
[ Mr.V.VENKATESAN, M.A., B.Ed., MBA.,M.Phil.,B.L]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

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.