Date of Filling :05.08.2014
Date of Disposal :05.11.2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, THIRUVALLUR
PRESENT: THIRU. S.PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M., … PRESIDENT
TMT. S.SUJATHA,B.Sc., … MEMBER-I
CC.51/2014
Tuesday, the 5th day of November 2015
A.Rajendiran
S/o A.janakiraman
No.1/B, Ma.Po.Si.Nagar,
Kambar Street,
Thiruvallur Taluk and District. … Complainant
/Vs/
The Assistant Engineer (O & M)
Thiruvallur, Thiruvallur KEDC,
TANGEDCO …Opposite Party
….
This Complaint is coming upon before us finally on 15.10.2015 in the Presence of Thiru.A.R.Poovannan, Advocate on the side of the complainant and Government Pleader for the opposite party and upon hearing arguments on the side of the complainant 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 against the opposite party seeking direction that the opposite party has to effect the three phase service connection to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/-for the excess current charge paid by the complainant and to pay Rs.25,000/- for the mental agony, hardship and strain caused to the complainant due to the deficiency of service of the opposite party and with cost.
The Brief averments of the complaint as follows:
1. The complainant is permanently residing in the above address and he is the absolute owner of the property. The complainant has already availed two single phase electricity service connection S.C.364-034-511 & S.C.364-034-569 to his house in the above address. Then he applied for the three phase connection to his house and has paid the deposit of a sum of Rs.6,800/- on 12.01.2012. That he was awaiting for more than one year for the service after making all the arrangements in his building to effect the service. He was regularly approaching the opposite party about the status of the application and there was no reply from their end.
2. That, one Mr.A.Narashimman has made an objection for effecting the service connection and he has also filed a suit in O.S.124/2012 before the Hon’ble Principal District Judge at Thiruvallur and the same is pending. The above said A.Narashimman has made an objection and filed the suit only on the strength of an illegal order passed by District Registrar, Kancheepuram and the complainant preferred an appeal against the said order before the Registrar General, Chennai-28 and the same is pending.
3. The pendency of the suit and the proceeding of the District Registrar, Kancheepouram are not binding on the complainant for getting his basis amenity of electricity supply. Further the complainant submits that already two service connection were in force and the proposed connection is only an additional three phase in the above building. The complainant submits that the complainant reasonably apprehend that opposite party to support the claim of Mr.Narashimman, knowing fully well that his objection is unascertainable, on 14.03.2013 replied that there is an objection and advised the complainant to get order through the court of Law. The complainant submits that the objection Mr.Narashimman is unsustainable and hence the denial by the opposite party to effect service on the score of the objection is highly illegal and it amounts to gross deficiency in service. The complainant is put to great loss and hardship by unlawful refusal. Further because of the over consumption with the single phase connection the complainant is constrained to pay an excess current consumption charge more that Rs.5,000/- bimonthly. Therefore this complaint is filed.
The contention of the written version of the opposite party as brief as follows:
4. The complaint is not maintainable in law and on facts. The allegations mentioned in the complaint are not true and are denied. That the complainant has already availed two single phase electricity service connection in S.C.364-034-511 and SC.No.364-093-569 to his house and he has applied for three phase connection to the same house and has paid the deposit amount sum of Rs.6,800/- on 12.01.2012. The opposite party specifically denies that the two service connection were in force and proposed connection in favour of complainant is only an additional three phase connection.
5. The opposite party admits that he has received the legal notice caused by the complainant on 19.03.2013 demanding service connection to the suit property. The claim of the complainant against the opposite party is false, frivolous and concocted stories, the complaint is not having any prima facie and the cause of action do not arise at all. On perusal of records we found that the complainant is not the owner of the disputed property and he had been misrepresented before the Assistant Engineer (O &M), Thiruvallur Town/KEDC, TANGEDCO as if he is the owner of the disputed property and obtained two single phase service connection. Latter on the above office came to know that the complainant is not the owner of the house property, that is, one Mr.A.Narashimman is the real owner and he has also been filed an objection application not to render service connection to the complainant, because in respect of the disputed his property, a civil case is also in O.S.No.124/2012 is pending before the Hon’ble Principal District Judge at Tiruvallur and also an appeal preferred before the Registrar General Chennai-28 by the complainant against the order passed by the District Registgrar, Kancheepuram is also pending. At this circumstance, unless the ownership dispute is decided among the complainant and Mr.A.Narashimman, it very difficult for the opposite party to give the service connection to the disputed property as demanded by the complainant.
6. That the other allegation of the complainant that he is paying excess current consumption more than 5,000/- bimonthly because he was not given three phase connection to the disputed property is legally unsustainable and as per the Electricity Act, whatever the quantum of current he uses, for which, he is liable to pay electricity charge bimonthly as per the Electricity rule and regulation. This issue will not cause any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party towards complainant. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
7. On the side of the complainant the proof affidavit submitted as his evidence
and Exhibit A1 to A9 are marked. Similarly, on the side of the opposite party proof affidavit is filed that no documents marked on his side.
8. At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this Forum is:
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as alleged in the complaint?
- To what other reliefs, the complainant entitled to?
9. Written arguments filed by both the parties and copy of the same has been furnished to either side. In addition to that, oral arguments also adduced on both sides.
10. Point 1: According to the case of the complainant is that the complainant
has applied for 3 phase service connection to his house and he has paid the deposit of sum of Rs.6,800/- on 12.01.2012 and approaching the opposite party regularly with all preparation and even then the opposite party has refused to give the said service connection on the objection filed by one A.Narasimman, is totally unsustainable and illegal and thereby the opposite party has committed gross deficiency in service and therefore the complainant is put to great loss and hardship. On the other hand, it is vehemently contended by the opposite party, that the allegation made in the complaint is not correct and in fact on perusal of records it is found that the complainant is not a real owner of the disputed property and has been misrepresented before the Assistance Engineer(O & M) , Thiruvallur Town, and obtained two single phase service connection and further one Mr.Narashimman has also been filed an objection to render service connection to the complainant, because, regarding the disputed property, he has filed a Civil suit in O.S.no.124/12, and it is pending before the Hon’ble Principle District Judge, Thiruvallur and also an appeal preferred by the complainant before the Registrar General, Chennai against the order passed by the District Registrar, Kancheepuram is also pending and therefore the opposite party correctly refused to effect three phase service connection and hence there is no deficiency in service on the side of the opposite party.
11. At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side it is crystal clear that the bounden duty of the complainant to prove his case by means of relevant and acceptable evidence. In such circumstances the foremost duty of this Forum is, to decide as to whether the complainant has proved his case by means of concrete evidence. First of all, on going through the proof affidavit of the complainant, it is learnt that in order to prove his ownership for the disputed property he has produced Exhibit A1 sale deed and in connection with, the current consumption of two single phase is in the name of the complainant, he has produced Exhibit A2 and A3 respectively and the house tax receipt which is marked Exhibit A4. It is learnt further, that the Exhibit A5 is the deposit receipt for three phase connection and Exhibit A6, is the letter from the opposite party. Further, it is stated that the complainant has sent legal notice Exhibit A8, to the opposite party and the same received by the opposite party, for which Exhibit A9, is the acknowledgement and is marked and complainant has marked Exhibit A7, the letter from the Registrar Registration Department, by stating that Madurai Bench, Madras High Court has issued stay for further proceedings in connection with land grabbing cases.
12. From the foregoing evidence and the documents produced on the side of the complainant and the averments of the proof affidavit of the opposite party it is crystal clear that the complainant has got two single phase connection already in the name of the complainant in the said address and to that effect Exhibit A2, current consumption charges card have been issued. At this juncture, the only contention raised by the opposite party that as per the objection by the Narashimman, who is the real owner of the disputed property and in this connection he has filed in O.S.124/2012 before the Hon’ble Principal District Judge at Thiruvallur and also District Registrar, Kancheepuram, passed the order to set aside the sale deed executed in the name of complainant and as against this order, the complainant preferred an appeal before the Registrar General, Chennai-28 and it is pending till date. Therefore, unless the disputes of the disputed property ownership is decided among the complainant and Mr.A.Narashimman, further connection cannot be given as rightly pointed out by the opposite party.
13. In such circumstances, this Forum can easily come to conclusion that there is a dispute regarding the property, for which the complainant sought for three phase EB service connection cannot be given. In this connection, the plea taken by the opposite party is quite correct and perfect. Moreover, there is two other single phase connection are already in existence for the personal use of electrical energy and therefore there is no hardship to the complainant for the day to day usage of Electricity energy. Similarly, the plea taken by the complainant that, he is paying an excess current consumption charges more than that of Rs.5,000/- bi-monthly, because, he was not given three phase connection to the disputed property is legally unsustainable as rightly pointed out by the opposite party.
14. In the light of the above circumstances and observations made above, this Forum has without any hesitation to hold that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Thus the point no.1 is answered accordingly.
15. Point: As per the view taken in the point no.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint. Thus, the point no.2 is answered 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 5th November 2015.
Sd/-**** Sd/-****
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
List of Documents filed by the complainant
Ex.A1/Dt. : Xerox copy of the Sale Deed.
Ex.A2/Dt. : Xerox copy of the current consumption charge card in the name of
complainant.
Ex.A3/Dt. : Xerox copy of the current consumption charge card in the name of
complainant.
Ex.A4/Dt.20.06.2012: Xerox copy of the house tax receipt of the complainant.
Ex.A5/Dt.12.01.2012: The Xerox copy of the E.B.payment receipt.
Ex.A6/Dt.14.03.2013: Xerox copy of the letter sent by the opposite party to the
complainant.
Ex.A7/Dt. : Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Registrar, Register
Department, to the complainant.
Ex.A8/Dt.24.03.2014: Xerox copy of the legal notice sent by the complainant’s counsel
to the opposite party.
Ex.A9/Dt. : Postal acknowledgement card of the opposite party.
List of documents of the opposite parties: Nil.
Sd/-**** Sd/-****
MEMBER I PRESIDENT
