Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/283/2012

R.Murali - Complainant(s)

Versus

President ,Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & another - Opp.Party(s)

J.Ranjanidevi

01 Oct 2015

ORDER

                      BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :   THIRU.A.K.ANNAMALAI                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                      TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                               MEMBER                                                                                  

F.A.NO.283/2012

(Against the order in CC.No.63/2007, dated 06.07.2011 on the file of DCDRF, Nagapattinam)

DATED THIS THE 1^st DAY OF OCTOBER 2015

 

R.Murali,

S/o.V.Ramamurthy,

Mela Veedhi, Kuttalam,                                        M/s.J.Ranjani Devi

Kuttalam Taluk,                                    Counsel for appellant / Complainant

Nagapattinam District.

-vs-

1.  President,

    Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

    T.N.E.B., Office,

    Annasalai, Chennai – 2.

2. Executive Engineer,

    (Operation & Maintenance)

    Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,                         M/s.R.Amarnath Rao Khande

    T.N.E.B., Office,                               Counsel for Respondents / 1& 2 Opp.parties

    Pattamangalam Street,

    Mayiladuthurai Town,

    Nagapattinam District.

          The Appellant is the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying certain relief.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint.  Against the said order, the appellant / complainant filed this appeal praying for to set aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.63/2007, dated 06.07.2011.  

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally on 22.09.2015, upon hearing   the arguments on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order.

A.K.ANNAMALAI,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The complainant is the appellant.

2.       The complainant was running a rice mill for which on 6.11.1995 applied for service connection with 92 HP and 5 kilowatts load to the 2^nd opposite party by paying necessary amount with development charges and also subsequently requested for reducing the load to 62 HP and 3 kilowatts  by paying Rs.17,250/- and Rs.9900/- and thereafter on 20.11.1996 reducing the load only for 3 HP with 300 watts after availing the order on 5.12.1996 for 60 HP and 3 kilowatts which was utilized upto March 2001.  Subsequently the rice mill was closed and praying for refund of various monies paid by him as calculated to the extent of Rs.22,450/- and praying for Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and for a cost a consumer complaint came to be filed.

3.       The opposite parties denied the allegations admitting the load supplies with necessary HPs and Kilowatts as pointed out by the complainant and contended that as per the Board Standing orders certain amount like development charges and other usage charges cannot be refunded and since the complainant filed a Civil suit cost of Rs.1000/- for the civil suit and another sum of Rs.3,200/- as CCD retained and another amount of Rs.17,900/- was refundable kept with them and thereby the complaint has to be dismissed.

4.       Based on the both sides materials and after an enquiry by accepting the contentions of the opposite parties the District Forum dismissed the complaint observing that there was no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant has come forward with this appeal contended that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint without taking into consideration of the appellant’s contentions dismissed the complaint when other details admitted and thereby the appeal is to be allowed.

6.       We have heard both sides arguments including the appellant party in person considering all the relevant materials.  The Respondents / opposite parties contended that the complainant cannot file consumer complaint for settlement of account and relied upon the precedent reported in II (2015) CPJ 298 (NC) in the case of Time Guarantee Financials Ltd –vs- Mrs.Snehal Prakash Gavankar in which it was observed as follows:

          “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1) (d), 21 (b) – Consumer – Share transaction – Settlement of accounts – This Commission cannot arrogate to itself powers of civil court – complainant not consumer.”

and another ruling reported in III (2011) CPJ 141 (NC) in the case of Milan Barot & Ors –vs- Mukesh Haridat Bhatt & Anr in which it is stated as follows:

          “Dispute between two parties pertaining to settlement of account – Matter to be adjudicated by a civil Court and not in a Consumer Court since it is clearly a “business to business” dispute.”

and also contended that the complaint is barred by limitation having availed service connection during the year 1995 utilized till 2001 has to come forward with this complaint  in  the year  2003 itself, but the complaint was filed only in the year 2007.  While considering these contentions of the respondents / opposite parties are concerned as per the precedent pointed out in the ruling reported in II (2015) CPJ 298 (NC) it is clear that regarding the disputes relating to settlement of accounts consumer court cannot decide the same and thereby the complaint is not entertainable before the Consumer Forum and as far as the question of limitation is concerned the complainant said to have filed Civil Suit obtained injunction for not disconnecting the service and in this circumstances it cannot be considered that the complaint was barred by limitation and as far as refund of amount is concerned it is contended that they are subject to the opposite parties terms and conditions of the Board Rules and Regulations.  For this the Respondent relied upon the ruling reported in III (2011) CPJ 333 (NC) in the case of BSES Yamuna Power Limited –vs- R.R.Auto in which it is held as follows

          “ Industrial unit closed – Removal of meter – Refund of security  deposit – Delivery of final bill - Development charges are such expenses which are incurred by service provider for providing facility which was towards enhancement of load, already stands consumed.”

Which cannot be refunded and thereby the complainant has to approach only authorities concerned in those regard.  The complainant contended that even the eligible amount admitted by the opposite parties under Ex.B9 for Rs.6,639/- was not repaid with interest.  While this contention is an acceptable one in view of the document under Ex.B9 relied upon by the Respondents / opposite parties only for that alone the order could be passed and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed however with directions to the opposite parties to refund that amount under Ex.B9. Accordingly,

          In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District6 Forum in CC.NO.63/2007, dated 06.07.2011.  However with direction to the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.6,639/- along with

6% interest from the date of complaint till realization as per document under Ex.B9 without insisting any other documents from the complainant and

          The direction shall be complied within 6 weeks from the date of this order.

          No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                        A.K.ANNAMALAI

     MEMBER                                                   PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

INDEX; YES/ NO

VL/D;/PJM/EB