Date of Filling      :  07.12.2012.

                                                                                            Date of Disposal  :  02.06.2016.

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR - 1.

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

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

Consumer Complaint No.36/2012

(Dated this Thursday the 02^nd day of June 2016)

Mr. R. Kannan,

S/o. Mr. Rangappa Chowdhry,

No.1946, Bangalore Trunk Road,

Pappanchathiram,

Nazharath Pettai Post,

Chennai - 600 123.                                                                      … Complainant.

/ Versus /

The Assistant Engineer (O & M),

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

Kamarajar Nagar,

Paruthipattu,

Chennai - 600 071.                                                                … Opposite party.

This complaint is coming upon before us finally on 27.04.2016 in the presence of Thiru. A.R. Poovannan, Counsel for the complainant and Thiru. J. Bala, Counsel for the opposite party and having perused the documents, evidences and written arguments on both sides 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 against the opposite party for seeking direction to reconnect the electricity service connection in the name of complainant, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damage towards the deficiency of service and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship to the complainant with cost.

The brief averments of the amended complaint is as follows:-

          The complainant is the absolute owner of the property measuring 1040 sq. ft. of land in S.No.20/4 at Kannapalayam Village, Ponnamallee Taluk with a house and shops.  The complainant availed electricity no.451-007-82 in his name for the residential premises and the premises is under his tenant.  That one Mrs. Krishnaveni Ammal and Jayavel filed a suit in O.S.60/2009 against the complainant and obtained an exparte decree for the reasons best known to the opposite party without any order from the court or due request from the consumer has disconnected the above mentioned electricity service connection.  A notice was affixed in his building that the opposite party is about to disconnect the electricity service connection to the S.C. Nos.451-007-410 & 451-007-411.

          2.       There was no order passed by nay court of law to disconnect any service connections.  That even as per the opposite party notice, only two connections alone should be disconnected.  But the opposite party to help the rival parties of this complainant and for the unlawful gain received from them has disconnected the service connection of the complainant’s home in S.C.No.451-007-82.  The opposite party exceeded their limits which amounts to gross deficiency in service and thereby the complainant is put to great loss and hardship.  The opposite party supported the said Jayavel for cheap means and caused great injustice and the opposite party action is highly condemnable.  The complainant approached the opposite party several times and explained all the above things and requested the opposite party for reconnection, but they did not cared about him and scolded the complainant with unparliamentarily words and insulted him and he is put to mental agony and hardship.  Then the complainant on 12.09.2012 sent a legal notice to the opposite party and the opposite party through their reply has requested the complainant to produce his documents of proof.

3.       Then the complainant sent a letter on 09.10.2012 along with all the documents and there was no acknowledgement.  The complainant then on 15.10.2012 sent another letter and the same was returned as no such office at Partuthipattu.  The complainant submits that the opposite party wantonly avoided the service of the letter.  Hence the complaint.

4.       The contention of written version of the opposite party is  briefly as follows:-

          The complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts.   It is stated that the complainant availed electricity service connection to his house in S.C. No.451-007-82 and one Tmt. Krishnaveni Ammal and Jayavel filed a suit O.S.60/2009 against the complainant and obtained an exparte decree on 18.09.2009.   It is denied that there was no order passed by any court of law of disconnect any service connection and only two connections alone should be disconnected but the opposite party to help the rival parties of this complainant and for the unlawful gain received from them be disconnected the service connection to the complainant’s house in S.R. No.451-007-82 and he exceeded their limit and without verifying anything about the order of the court details of parties and details of the service connections had all of a sudden disconnected all the five service connections and also denied that the opposite parties committed deficiency in service and he supported the said Jayavel for cheap means and caused great injustice and the opposite party’s action is highly condemnable.

6.       The opposite party denied that the complainant approached the opposite party several times and explained all the above things and requested him for reconnection and he does not cared about the complainant and scolded the complainant with unparliamentary words and insulted the complainant.  Hence, this complaint may be dismissed.

7.       In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant, the proof affidavit submitted for his evidence and Ex.A1 to Ex.A8 were marked.  While so, on the side of the  opposite party, the proof affidavit is filed  and Ex.B1 is marked on his side.

8.       At this juncture, the point for consideration before this Forum is:-

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

2. To what other reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?

9.    Written arguments filed on both sides.  Oral arguments adduced on the side of the complainant.  Inspite of sufficient time given for adducing oral arguments, the opposite party has not come forward to adduce the oral arguments.  Hence oral arguments on the side of the opposite party is closed.  

10.     Point no.1:-

On careful perusal of the rival submissions putforth on either side, it is an admitted fact that the complainant having an electricity connection number 451-007-82 for his house and shop in survey no.20/4 and for which Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked.   It is further learnt that one Mrs. Krishnaveni Ammal and Mr. Jayavel filed a suit in O.S.60/2009 against the complainant and obtained Ex-parte decree.    The opposite party affixied a notice in the building of the complainant with regard to disconnect the electricity service connection to the S.C. Nos.451-007-410 & 451-007-411.   It is also not a disputed one.  While so, the allegations of the complainant is that the opposite party inorder to help the rival parties  of the complainant and for the unlawful gain received from them has disconnected the service connection of the complainant’s home in S.A. No.451-007-82 for which, there is no order passed by any court of law and to that effect, the complainant had issued a legal notice Ex.A4 and in turn Ex.A5, the reply was given by the opposite party.   The complainant sent Ex.A6 & Ex.A7, letters by stating that he has fulfilled the demand of the opposite party.  But even then the opposite party has failed to provide the electricity connection by the complainant.

11.     On the other hand, the opposite party would submit that the service connections were disconnected only after receiving letters passed in E.A No.144/2011 and in E.P. No.15/2011 in O.S. No.60/2009.  It is clearly ordered by the Court of Law to take a suitable action to remove the electricity connection in E.B. connection nos. 451-007-410, 411, 432, 438 and 82.  At the outset, the learned counsel for complainant would submit that Ex.B1, letter of the Subordinate Judge addressed to the Junior Engineer, T.N.E.B. Kamarajar Nagar, Avadi creates suspects because  in that letter, the service connection nos.432, 438 and 82 have been inserted by some other ink and therefore, the same cannot be taken into account for consideration.

12.     At this juncture, on perusal of the enclosure in Ex.B1 the property schedule, the survey no.20/4 and survey no.19/1B have been incorporated as item nos. 1 & 2 respectively.  At this point of time, it is pertinent to note that, for the survey no. given in this complaint for the relevant house property having electricity connection no.457-007-82 has survey no.20/4.   Moreover, as per the version of the complainant, if it is really any insertion or adding of numbers in Ex.B1, inorder to prove the correct order, why not the complainant has come forward to produce the correct order copy regarding the said fact filed before this Forum.  There is no valid reason to show, “what hindrances to the complainant in this aspect”.   So, this Forum has concluded that the objection raised by the complainant’s counsel regarding Ex.B1 is hereby rejected since it devoid of merits.   At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the opposite party has acted only as per the order of the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee in Ex.B1 which is crystal clear.   Therefore, there is no question of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  Thus, point no.1 is answered accordingly.

13.     Point no.2:-

As per the decision arrived in point no.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint.  Thus, point no.2 is answered accordingly.

14.     In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Dictated by the president to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this 02^nd   June 2016.

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

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT

List of documents filed by the complainant:-

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

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

MEMBER - I                                                                             PRESIDENT