IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

      BEFORE :        Hon’ble Justice R. SUBBIAH                    PRESIDENT

                    Thiru R. VENKATESAPERUMAL              MEMBER                        

F.A.NO.226/2018

(Against order in CC.NO.26/2013 on the file of the DCDRC, Thiruvannamalai)

DATED THIS THE 21^st DAY OF JUNE 2022

1.       The Assistant Executive Engineer (O&M)

          Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,          Kalasapakkam

2.       The Executive Engineer

          Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Polur

3.       The Superintending Engineer

          Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,          Thiruvannamalai

4.       The Chief Engineer                                   M/s. Hemalatha Gajapathy

          Tamil Nadu Electricity Board                                 Counsel for

          Villupuram                                       Appellants / 1^st to 4^th Opposite parties

                                                         Vs.

R. Manoharan

S/o. Ramasamy

Pirayampattu Village                                                     M/s. Rajarajan

Kalasapakkam Taluk                                                       Counsel for

Thiruvannamalai District                                         Respondent/ Complainant

          The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite parties praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.17.8.2017 in CC. No.26/2013.

          This petition is coming before us for hearing finally today.  Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on bothside, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH ,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

1.      The opposite parties before the District Commission are the appellants herein.

2.  The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant is having three electricity service connections with the opposite party.   By using these service connections, the complainant was irrigating his 6 acres of land.  It is the duty of the opposite parties to maintain the electricity connections and the wire connections.  Since the opposite parties have not maintained the connections properly, the wires were worn out and were hanging.  Due to which, at the time of rain, the current supply to his land was disconnected and crops withered.  Even after complaint, no steps have been taken by the opposite parties to restore the service connection.  Though legal notice was sent, no response was evoked from the opposite party, hence he filed a complaint before the District Commission praying for compensation.

3.         Though notice was served on the Appellants/  opposite parties, they remained absent before the District Commission, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant, directing the  Appellants/  opposite parties  to pay a sum of Rs.20000/- towards compensation alongwith cost of Rs.2000/-.  Aggrieved over the said exparte order, the opposite parties have preferred this appeal, praying for remanding the matter back to the District Commission, in order to conduct the case on merit.

4.        The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the complainant had not specifically mentioned about which of the crops withered,  and also had not established the extent of land in which crops were grown.  The current was disconnected only in the interest of public.  The appearance before the District Commission is neither willful nor wanton.  Thus prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit.

5.       We have heard the learned counsels appearing on either side.

6.       It is submitted by the learned counsel for appellant that the appellants being the government department, the delay had been caused unavoidably.  Considering the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that a chance may be given to the appellants/ opposite parties to agitate their right on merit.  Eventhough on considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to allow this appeal on imposing certain cost, and by way of order dt.7.6.2022 we have directed the appellants/ opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- as cost to the Respondent, on or before 20.6.2022, which was complied with.  Hence this appeal is allowed today by remanding the complaint back to the District Commission for fresh disposal.  

7.       In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission, Thiruvannamalai, in C.C.No.26/2013 dt.17.8.2017, and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission, Thiruvannamalai, for fresh disposal according to law on merit.

Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission, Thiruvannamalai on 21.7.2022, for taking further instructions. On which date itself, the appellants/ opposite parties shall file not only their vakalat, but also the written version, proof affidavit, and documents if any. The District Commission is directed to dispose of the complaint, as expeditiously as possible, according to law on merit.  

The amount deposited, by the appellant, shall remain in the custody of this commission, till the order passed in original complaint, on merit.

R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                      R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT

+