Tamil Nadu

Thiruvallur

CC/49/2013

S.Pushpalatha, w/o Selvam - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

N.c.Ravichandran

06 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                                                      Filed On: 04.11.2013

                                                                             Disposed On:06.08.2015

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR

       PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M                  : PRESIDENT

                        TMT.    S. SUJATHA, B.Sc.,                                : MEMBER-I

 

Thursday, the Day of 6^th August-2015

C.C.NO. 49/2013

S.  Pushpalatha,

W/o. Selvam,

No. 749/A, Ammanambakkam Junction Road,

Thamaraipakkam village,

Thiruvallur taluk,

Thiruvallur District.                                                                … Complainant.

 

-Vs-

 

1.  The Assistant Engineer,

     Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

     Velliyur, Thiruvallur Taluk,

     Thiruvallur District.

 

2.  The Assistant Executive Engineer,

     Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

     Thirunindravur,

     Thiruvallur Taluk,

     Thiruvallur District.

3.  The Executive Engineer,

     Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

     Sriperumbudur.

 

4.  The Chairman,

     Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

     Anna Salai,

     Chennai.                                                                             …Opposite Parties       

 

Counsel For Complainant                                    : Mr. N.C. Ravichandran

Counsel For Opposite Parties1 to 4                     :Mr. J. Bala, Advocate

 

 

 

This Complaint is coming upon before us finally on  24.07.2015  in the presence M/s. Mr. N.C. Ravichandran, ,  Advocate  on the side of the complainant and Mr. J. Bala, Advocate appeared on the side of the opposite parties-1 to 4, and upon hearing arguments on the side of the both side and perused the documents and evidence, this Forum delivered the following,

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

This Complaint is filed by the complainant U/S 12 of consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to provide new service connection to the complainant and to pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-for deficiency in service and caused mental agony and hardship and Rs.10,000/- towards the cost of the complaint.

 

The Brief facts of the complaint are as follows:  

1.       The Complainant gave an application before Tami Nadu Electricity Board to obtain E.B. service connection for her shop situated at Thamaraipakkam village and as per the instruction of the E.B. Officials paid Rs. 1,550/- charges for the new service connection on 13.06.2012 and obtain a receipt for that payment.  But the Complainant received the letter dated 02.07.2012 from the Assistant Engineer, Velliyur and States that the complainant has to pay Rs. 66,892/- Compensation amount to the Opposite party under rule 27 1 (3) of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Commission.  The executive Engineer, Sriperumbudur instructs that if the compensation amount not paid, the new service connection cannot provided to the Complainant.

2.       On 28.06.2013 the Assistant Engineer, Velliyur gave a reply to the representation made by the complainant’s husband namely Selvam has to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 66,892/- in the case pending before D.M.C. Tiruvallur and pending this case the T.N.E.B. informed that they cannot provide the new service connection to the Complainant.

3.       The Complainant made all her efforts to clarify the Opposite Parties to provide new service connection in her name, the Opposite Parties omitted to provide new service connection.  The act of Opposite Parties are comes under “deficiency in service”.  Even receiving the charges for the new service connection the Opposite Parties omitted to provide the service connection for the untenable reasons.  The above act comes under Estoppel by the Opposite Parties.  Hence this complaint is filed.

          The written version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party Adopted by other

4.       The complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable in law and false on facts.  This opposite party denied all the allegations.  In as much as the service connection is not effected, the complainant cannot be a consumer within the meaning of section 2(d) of the consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Moreover, as per the said definition the complainant cannot be termed as a “consumer” under the said Act in as much as the complainant is seeking service connection for commercial purpose. That after verification he comes to know that the complainant and her husband A.K. Selvam committed theft of energy in S.C.No. 295 and levied penal charges of Rs.66892/- the opposite party or her husband have not paid the penal charges as on date.  Though the C.C.No: 65/1997 was disposed and the complainant’s husband was acquitted he has to pay the revenue loss of Rs. 66,892/- to the opposite party unless and until the penal charges is paid the complainant is not entitled for the new service connection.

5.       The complainant suppressed the fact and filed this complaint.  There is no deficiency of service on the part the opposite parties.    As per regulation of the TNEB supply code read with third provision to regulation 27(1) of the TNEB distribution code.  Penal charges has to be paid and the same was informed to the complainant.

6.       In view of the term consumer as defined in section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant, who seeks electricity service connection for commercial purpose, cannot come within the definition of Consumer under the said Act and as such the complaint is not entitled to maintain the above complaint before this Hon’ble Forum.   As such, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

7.       In order to prove the case of the complainant the proof affidavit submitted as her evidence and Ex.A1 to ExA9 are marked, whileso, on the side of the opposite parties, the proof affidavit filed along with the Ex.B1 to Ex.B2.

8.       At this juncture, the main point for consideration before this forum is,

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. To what other relief the complainant is entitled to?

9.       Written Arguments submitted by both sides and the copy of the same is furnished to either side.  In additional to that oral Arguments adduced on both sides.

10. Point No. 1:-  According to the case of the complainant is that the complaint gave an application along with the prescribed charges of Rs. 1550/- to obtain new E.B same connection, the opposite parties omitted to provide new service connection even thereafter the criminal case in CC. 65/97 was ended in acquitted and further insisted  for the penal charges of Rs.66, 892/-,  and thereby the opposite parties have clearly committed the deficiency of service and caused  mental agony and hardship.

11.     While so, it is contended by the opposite parties that though the criminal case against the husband of the complainant who is living in the same proof was disposed of, he has to pay the revenue loss of the Rs. 66,892/- and unless and until the said penal charges is paid, the complainant is not entitled for the new connection U/s 17 (i) TNEB Distribution code and besides the dues, the complainant herself admitted in the complaint itself that she has sought for electrical service connection for shop for commercial purpose under Tariff V and so that as defined in Sec 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, she cannot come within the definition of Consumer and hence the complaint is not maintainable. 

12.     In such circumstances, it goes without saying that the complainant is having bounden duty to prove her case through proper and acceptable evidence before this forum.  First of all, on careful perusal of the proof affidavit, it is learnt that the E.B receipts which are marked for showing the payment of prescribed fees for new E.B, service connection.  These are all not disputed.  Similarly, the criminal case lodged against the husband on the complaint preferred by the opposite party in C.C. 65/97 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Thiruvallur was ended in acquitted on 29.04.2014 and for which the copy of the Judgement marked as Ex.A6 and the suit filed in O.S. 173/96 by the husband of the complainant against the opposite parties was dismissed as not pressed on 02.06.2003 for which Ex.A7 marked.  At the outset, it is learnt from Ex. A3 the application for new E.B. connection could not be provided for the reason of pending criminal case and not paid the penal charges of Rs. 66,892/- and to that reason, the complainant informed through Ex.A4, the said case was disposed of on 29.04.2004.  At this juncture, on perusal of the Ex.A5, it is stated that U/S 27 (1) (3) of TNEB regulation rules, unless or until the payment of charges made, the new connection could not be provided.  In this regard, the opposite parties had issued Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 to the House owner Tmt. Meenakshi Ammal and Mr. A.K. Selvam who is the husband of the complainant herein.  In such circumstances, the complainant mainly stated that since because of the disposal of the criminal case in C.C. 65/97 and the Civil Suit, in O.S. 173/96 were disposed of and also no appeal preferred by the opposite parties and the legal opinion given by the Additional  Government Pleader  in Ex.A8, no need of paying any penal charges by the complainant or her husband for obtaining new service connection.

13.     At this juncture, whether the said stand putforth by the complainant is correct or not has to be decided.  At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the criminal case entirely different with that of the Penal charges which has to be recovered to avoid the revenue loss due to the unauthorized use of electricity.  It is further noticed that as per the ingredient U/S 27 (1) of the TamilNadu Electricity Distribution Code as amended upto 30.11.2012 the penal charges assessed by the competent authority of the opposite parties has to be paid despite of the disposal of the criminal case in CC. 65/97 against the husband of the complainant for the theft of energy Furthermore, unless and until the penal charges is paid, the complainant is not entitled for the new service connection.

14.     In furtherance, it is learnt that the assessment in case of various acts of unauthorized use of electricity Constituting offences under Electricity
Act 2003, complaint against assessment is held not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and the Civil Court Jurisdiction to consider a suit with respect to the decision of assessing officer U/S 126 or 127 is barred U/s 145 of Electricity Act 2003.  Therefore, it is clear that after notice of the provisional assessment to the person alleged to have indulged in unauthorized use of electricity, the final decision by an assessing officer who is a public servant, on the assessment of unauthorized use of electricity is a quasi - financial and does not fall within the meaning of Consumer dispute of U/S 2(1) (e) of the consumer protection act 1986.  In the case on hand such notice viz., Ex.B1 to Ex.B2 have been sent to the Building owner Tmt. Meenakshi Ammal and Mr. A.K. Selvam, the husband of the complainant.  The said decision has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in U.P. power corporation Ltd., & ORS- Vs-  ANIS AHMAD reported in (2013) 8 Sec 491.

15.     At this point of time, on perusal of Ex.A8, it is only pertaining to the fact of opined by the Additional Government pleader that due to long duration of limitation the appeal cannot be preferred against the findings in C.C. 65/97 and OS. 173/96.  Therefore, it is crystal clear that no opinion given by the AGP in Ex.A8 that the husband of the complainant need not pay any money for the theft of energy as narrated by the complainant in the written arguments.

16.     From the foregoing among other facts and circumstances, this forum holds that this forum has no jurisdiction to interfere in the assessment of penal charges by the competent authorities of the opposite Parties.  Hence, the plea taken by the opposite parties, that unless and until the penal charges paid, the new service connection could not be provided holds good.  More so, on seeing the letter in Ex. A5 sent by Opposite Party-1 through naked eye, no word found to refuse for new service connection to the complainant, but it has only stated as follows:

  nk‰f©l  ÏH¥ÕL  bjhif %. 66,892/- I brY¤Âdhš k£Lnk  ä‹ Ïiz¥ig më¡f ÏaY« vd¤ bjçé¤J¡ bfhŸs¥gL»wJ.

Therefore, it is crystal clear, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. 

17.     Next point to be decided is whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection act 1986.  It is stated by the opposite parties, that the complainant hereby admitted in the complainant itself that she has sought for Electricity service connection for her shop for commercial purpose under Tariff -V and so that she cannot come U/S 2(d) of the Act.  Whereas, it is narrated on the side of the complainant in the written arguments that the service connection sought for the livelihood of the complainant, and hence the provision is clear that if it is livelihood, than the complainant came under the purview of the Consumer protection Act 1986 since, the complainant is a diploma holder in tailoring and only applied service connection for her tailor shop which is running for her livelihood.  At this juncture, this forum has to decide, whether the said fact has been proved by the complainant by means of cogent and Consistent evidence.  First of all, on perusal of the averments made in the complainant, it is simply stated in para 3, as gave an application before TamilNadu Electricity board to obtain E.B service connection for her shop but not otherwise.  It is pertinent to note that, not even a simple word about the nature of the business and not specially mentioned about the term livelihood.  It is narrated as first time that too only in the later stage in the written arguments and has comeforword to produce  the ExA9, the certificate for the study of the Diplomo in tailoring.  At the outset, on careful going through the Ex.A9, there is no registration number, date of issue and even the duration of the said diploma course found in the said certificate which clearly reveals the fact that Ex.A9 is a created document, only for the purpose of the case and not a genuine document as rightly pointed out by the opposite parties.  Hence, it cannot be looked into it and therefore Ex.A9, and not to be accepted. Moreover, none of the relevant document produced from the competent authorities to obtain necessary license etc. for opening the shop by the complainant.  That also creates great doubts in the case of the complainant.  Therefore, it is rightly pointed out by the opposite parties, that the complaint does not come under the meaning of the Consumer U/s 2(d) of the  Consumer Protection Act 1986 and holds good.

18.     In the light of the above facts and observations, the complainant has not moved this Forum with clean hands and holds without any hesitation that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint.  Thus this point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

19. Point No. 2:-       In view of the decision arrived in the point no. 1 the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint and answered the point is accordingly.

          In the Result, this complaint is dismissed.  No Cost.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her, correctly by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 6^th August- 2015.

Sd/-                                                                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER-I                                                                                      PRESIDENT

 

List of Complainant Documents filed:

Ex A1.  13.06.2012  - Xerox Copy of  E.B. receipt for Rs.1,550/-

Ex A2.  13.06.2013  - Xerox Copy of        E.B. receipt for Rs.1,550/-

ExA3    02.07.2012  - Xerox Copy of  Reply from 1^st Opposite Party to the              

                                    Complainant. 

 

Ex A4           -          - Xerox copy of  Letter from Complainant to 1^st Opposite

                                    Party.

 

Ex A5   28.06.2013  - Xerox copy of  Reply from 1^st Opposite Party the                             Complainant.

 

Ex A6   29.04.2004   - Xerox Copy of  The order copy in C.C.No.65/97  on the file     

                                     of J.M.-1,  Thiruvallur

 

Ex A7            -          - Xerox Copy of  Suit register extract of O.S.No.173/96 on the

                                    file of    D.M.C. Thiruvallur          

                                                

Ex A8   08.05.2013 -  Xerox Copy of  The opinion given by Additional   

                                    Government Pleader to 2^nd Opposite Party

 

Ex.A9   10.10.2007 - Xerox Copy of Tailoring Certificate

 

List of Opposite Party-1 Documents:        

 

Ex.B1   22.04.1996       - Xerox copy of  letter  to the Building owner by the  

                                           TNEB (Dept.)

Ex.B2    18.10.1996         - Xerox copy of letter to the Building Owner by the  

                                           TNEB

 

Sd/-                                                                                                     Sd/-

MEMBER-I                                                                                      PRESIDENT