Date of Filing : 30.09.2020
Date of Disposal : 25.10.2022
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.MURUGAN, M.COM.,ICWA (Inter),B.L., ......MEMBER-II
CC. No.28/2020
THIS TUESDAY, THE 25th DAY OF OCTOBER 2022
1.Mr.P.S.Subramaniyan, S/o.Sriramulu,
2. Mrs.Rajeswari, W/o.Sirramulu,
No.2/30, Perumal Koil Street,
New Gummidipoondi,
Thiruvallur District. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
1.The Divisional Engineer,
O&M/TANGEDCO,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
C.E.D.C.North, Venbakkam, Ponneri, 601 204.
2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
O&M/TANGEDCO,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
C.E.D.C, North, Ponneri.
3.The Assistant Engineer,
O&M/TANGEDCO,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Gummidipoondi -601 201.
4.The Superintending Engineer,
TANGEDCO, Chennai North,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002. …..opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : Mr.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite parties : exparte
This complaint came up before us on various dates and finally on 29.09.2022 in the presence of Mr.A.R.Poovannan Advocate counsel for the complainant and the opposite parties were set exparte for non appearance and upon perusing the documents and evidences of the complainant this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to take steps to remove the underground electric line in the complainant’s area and to erect the electricity poles in the earlier place and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that the complainant availed electricity service connection from the opposite parties for his house and one Mr.Srinivasan was residing in the opposite side of the street of the complainant who got electrical service connection extended from the electric pole erected before the complainant’s house. During the Vardha cyclone the said Mr.Srinivasan removed the electric pole in front of the complainant’s house as there was damage because of cyclone due to which more than 15 families were affected without electricity power for more than a week. The complainant themselves issued a notice to the opposite parties dated 24.12.2016to erect the removed poles which was not acted by the opposite parties. It was submitted that the 1st opposite party’s subordinates without due sanction or payment had commenced laying underground supply which was absolutely unwarranted in the locality and it was done only to support some individual for cheap means. Because of underground supply the complainant service was affected and thus getting a disturbed supply. Though the complainant repeatedly approached the opposite party to erect the pole, no action was taken by them. During the year 2018 they conducted an enquiry and submitted a report on 21.12.2018 that the underground service connection was given as per the rules. The enquiry was biased and report was made only to suppress the unlawful act committed by the subordinates. Because of the shifting the service to the complainant’s home was fluctuated and the electric goods get damaged. Thus aggrieved, the present complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties for the following reliefs as mentioned below;
To direct the opposite parties to take steps to remove the underground electric line in the complainants area and to erect the electricity poles in the earlier place;
To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A24. Though notice was served to the opposite parties, they did not appear before this Commission and hence they were called absent and set ex-parte on 08.01.2021 for non appearance and for non filing of written version within the mandatory period as per statute.
Points for consideration:
Whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency in service in erecting the underground electricity connection in the complainant’s locality affecting the complainant’s house and in not erecting electrical poles as requested by the complainant?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
The following documents were filed on the side of complainants in support of her contentions;
Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties dated 24.12.2016 was marked as Ex.A1;
Complaint to the Chief Engineer, TNEB (North) Chennai by the complainant dated 10.02.2017 was marked as Ex.A2;
Complaint to the District Collector, Thiruvallur District by the complainant dated 13.02.2017 was marked as Ex.A3;
Complaint to the Chairman Cum Managing Director, Chennai by the complainant was marked as Ex.A4;
Complaint to the Chief Engineer, (TNEB (North), Chennai by the complainant dated 16.04.2017 was marked as Ex.A5;
Complaint to Human Rights Commission, Chennai by the complainant dated 02.05.2017was marked as Ex.A6;
Notice to the Division Engineer, Ponneri dated 07.06.2018 was marked as Ex.A7;
Proceedings by the BDO, Gummidipooni dated 14.09.2018 was marked as Ex.A8;
Letter given by the complainant dated 23.09.2018 was marked as Ex.A9;
Proceedings by the Thasildhar, Gummidipoondi dated 03.10.2018 was marked as Ex.A10;
Proceeding by the BDO, Gummidipooni dated 15.12.2018 was marked as Ex.A11;
Written letter by the complainant dated 04.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A12;
Receipt of the Police complaint (CSR) dated 15.07.2019 was marked as Ex.A13;
Proceeding by the Thasildhar, Gummidipoondi dated 10.08.2019 was marked as Ex.A14;
Proceeding by the Thasildhar, Gummidipoondi was marked as Ex.A15;
Representation by the villagers dated 15.08.2017 was marked as Ex.A16;
Proceeding by the BDO, Gummidipooni dated 17.08.2019 was marked as Ex.A17;
Reply by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Ponneri to the complainant dated 19.09.2019 was marked as Ex.A18;
Complaint to the section Engineer, Chennai 2 by the complainant dated 23.09.2019 was marked as Ex.A19;
Proceeding by the Deputy Director, Thiruvallur dated 31.10.2019 was marked as Ex.A20;
Receipt dated 27.09.2019 was marked as Ex.A21;
Photographs was marked as Ex.A22;
Receipt dated 04.01.2020 was marked as Ex.A23;
Receipt dated 20.08.2020 was marked as Ex.A24;
Heard the oral arguments adduced by the learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the written arguments, pleadings and material evidences produced by the complainant. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant is that when the electric pole near the complainant’s house got damaged during vardha cyclone instead of laying electrical pole the opposite parties had laid underground electricity line without any due sanction. He argued that due to underground electricity supply the service connection of the complainant’s house got affected causing damage to the electrical goods. Further he argued that in spite of several efforts and representation the underground electricity supply connection was not removed by the opposite parties. Thus he sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.
On appreciation of the available materials we could infer that no deficiency in service could be imposed upon the opposite party as they only had done their duty. Further even as per the version of the complainant an enquiry was held by the Executive Engineer who had held that the underground service connection was laid only as per the rules. Though the complainant alleges that the said enquiry was biased but no evidence was put forth by him to establish the allegation. Further on perusal of the complaints given by the complainant to the various Authorities clearly shows that the only grievance for the complainant is that the electricity connection has been given near the complainant’s house. The said allegation connect be accepted unless it affected the complainant. Though it is alleged by the complainant that the underground service connection caused damage to the electrical goods the same was not proved satisfactorily. If at all the complainant is of the view that his right to enjoy the property was affected by the erection of the electricity pole near the house he can very well approach the Writ Jurisdiction writ act under the Constitution of India 1950. In the facts and circumstances we did not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in erecting the underground electrical supply. It is also to be noted that except complainant no other persons had any grievance with regard to erection of the underground electricity supply. Thus we hold that the complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Thus we answer the point accordingly in favour of the opposite parties and as against the complainant.
Point No.2:-
As we have held above that the complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, he is not entitled to any reliefs as claimed in the complaint from the opposite parties. Thus we answer the point accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to 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 Commission on this the 25th day of October 2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 24.12.2016 Legal notice by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A2 10.02.2017 Complaint to the Chief Engineer, TNEB (North) Chennai by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A3 13.02.2017 Complaint to the District Collector, Thiruvallur District by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A4 22.02.2017 Complaint to the Chairman Cum Managing Director, Chennai by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A5 16.04.2017 Complaint to the Chief Engineer TNEB(North), Chennai by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A6 02.05.2017 Complaint to Human rights Commission, Chennai by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A7 07.06.2018 Notice to the Division Engineer, Ponneri. Xerox
Ex.A8 14.09.2018 Proceeding by the BDO, Gummidipoondi. Xerox
Ex.A9 23.09.2018 Letter by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A10 03.10.2018 Proceeding by the Thasildhar, Gummidipoondi. Xerox
Ex.A11 15.12.2018 Proceeding by the BDO, Gummidipoondi. Xerox
Ex.A12 04.03.2019 Letter by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A13 15.07.2019 Receipt of the complaint (CSR). Xerox
Ex.A14 10.08.2019 Proceeding by the Thasildhar, Gummidipoondi. Xerox
Ex.A15 08.08.2019 Proceeding by the Thasildhar, Gummidipoondi. Xerox
Ex.A16 15.08.2019 Representation by the Villagers. Xerox
Ex.A17 17.08.2019 Proceeding by the BDO, Gummidipoondi. Xerox
Ex.A18 19.09.2019 Reply by the Assistant Divisional Engineer, Ponneri to the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A19 23.09.2019 Complaint to the section Engineer, Chennai by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A20 31.10.2019 Proceeding by the Deputy Director, Thiruvallur. Xerox
Ex.A21 27.09.2019 Receipt. Xerox
Ex.A22 ............. Photographs. Xerox
Ex.A23 04.01.2020 Receipt. Xerox
Ex.A24 20.08.2020 Receipt Xerox
List of documents filed by the opposite parties:-
-Nil-
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II PRESIDENT
