Date of filing:      10.07.2019

                                                                                                                                 Date of disposal : 21.02.2023

 

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

 

RBT/CC. No.114/2022

THIS TUESDAY, THE 21th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023

(CC.No.108/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)

 

Mrs.P.Saradha, 

W/o.Ponnusamy,

No.10, Nethajai Nagar,

4th Cross Street, Alampakkam Road,

Madhuravoyal, Chennai 600 095.                                                     ……Complainant.     

                                                                          //Vs//

1.The Assistant Engineer,

   439/332, Office of the Assistant Engineer,

   TNGEDCO, West Circle,

   Madhuravoyal, Chennai 600 095.

 

2.The Superintending Engineer,

   West Chennai TNGEDCO, 

   No.33 KV, Thirumangalam Complex,

   Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.                                               .......Opposite parties. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                  :   Mr.C.Prabhu, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite parties           :   M/s.J.Hemalatha Gajapathy, Advocate.

                         

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.108/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.114/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 06.02.2023 in the presence of  Mr.C.Prabhu, Advocate for complainant and M/s.J.Hemalatha Gajapathy, Advocate for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, 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 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in disconnection of Electricity connection to the complainant’s premises along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to restore the household electricity connection to the complainant’s residence, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the arbitrary disconnection of Electricity connection to the complainant’s premises the present complaint was filed.  It was the case of the complainant that she got household Electricity Connection from the opposite parties on 25.07.2014 by paying Rs.700/- as Meter caution deposit, S.C. Charges of Rs.250/-, Development Charges of Rs.200/- and CC Deposit of Rs.600/-.  The opposite parties allotted household Electricity Connection by installing meter box at the complainant’s residence with Consumer number bearing 09403002722 on 25.07.2014.  Since then the complainant had been availing household electricity services by paying consumption charges regularly as per tariff plan as fixed by the opposite parties. During the month of January 2019 the employees from the opposite party’s office disconnected the electricity connection to the residence of the complainant even without any prior notice or giving any reason. Till date electricity connection has not been restored to the complainant’s residence. Hence complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties and the same was received by them but no action was taken by them.  Hence aggrieved by the act of the opposite parties the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite parties to restore the household electricity connection to the complainant’s residence, to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite parties:-

The opposite parties filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interalia that the complainant has obtained the electricity service connection to her premises bearing No.10, Nethaji Nagar, 4th Cross Street, Alapakkam, Madhuravoyal, Chennai, by paying necessary charges during the year 2014 and consuming the electricity supply.  The complainant obtained the electricity connection to her Thatched Hut located on the Alapakkam, Tank Bund.  The land belongs to the Public Works Department Canal Land. It was submitted that the Hon’ble High Court passed orders that the land pertaining to the water ways, lakes, ponds, canals and the River beds has to be free from encroachments and all the encroachments to be removed forthwith.  As per the direction of the Hon’ble High Court all the encroachments over the water ways lakes, ponds canals and the river beds has been removed.  In particular the encroachments occupied by the complainant and the neighboring huts and semi permanent encroachments have been removed during the month of January 2019.  While removing the encroachments of huts and the semi permanent structures, the service connections were also disconnected as per the instructions of the Revenue and P.W.D. Authorities.  While removing the encroachments the complainant has taken away the electricity Digital Meter from the encroachment place without the knowledge of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board.  After a long time the complainant once again put up the hut in said government encroachment water ways land and made Electricity connection by herself without the consent of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and threatens to effect the service connection. It was submitted that in order to consider the request the complainant was informed to obtain No Objection Certificate from the Tahsildar for effecting the regular service connection. The Tahsildar has refused to furnish the No Objection Certificate for effecting the Electricity supply since the hut erected by the complainant falls within the water ways area and hence the No Objection Certificate to the complainant’s encroached hut cannot be issued.  Further the Village Administrative Officer has also given letter that the electricity supply to the complainant’s premises could not be given and therefore the claim of the complainant that the service connection to her premises was not effected by the opposite parties is baseless and thus they sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A6. On the side of the opposite parties proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 on their side. 

Points for consideration:

Whether the contention of the complainant that the opposite parties had illegally disconnected the Electricity Service Connection to the complainant’s house was true and whether the act of opposite parties in not entertaining the service request amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;

Copy of meter caution deposit and other charges for electricity connection dated 11.07.2014 was marked as Ex.A1;

Copy of electricity account summary was marked as Ex.A2;

Copy of unit reading card of the complainant was marked as Ex.A3;

 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party dated 10.04.2019 was marked as Ex.A4;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party dated 31.05.2019 was marked as Ex.A5;

Photograph of complainant’s residence was marked as Ex.A6;

On the side of opposite parties the following documents were filed to proof of their contentions;

Report of the VAO dated 26.04.2019 was marked as ExB1;

Copy of letter of Tahsildar, Madhuravoiyal, addressed to the complainant in connection with issue of NOC dated 27.05.2019 was marked as Ex.B2;

Reply notice to the Advocate notice by Assistant Engineer, Alapakkam section dated 13.08.2019 was marked as Ex.B3;

Copy of letter of Tahsildar, Madjuravoiyal addressed to the Assistant Engineer (O&M) regarding status of the land in S.No.579 – Government Water Land dated 26.09.2019 was marked as Ex.B4;

Photograph of the complainant’s hut was marked as Ex.B5;

Consumer Ledger was marked as Ex.B6;

Complainant service connection Application with Deed of Indemnity and family card was marked as Ex.B7;

The crux of the arguments made by the learned counsel appearing for the complainant is that the complainant was having household Electricity service connection from the year 25.07.2014 by paying Rs.700/- as meter caution deposit, service connection charges Rs.250/- and development charges Rs.200/- and consumer connection deposit Rs.600/-.  However, in the month of January 2019 the employees of the opposite parties disconnected the Electricity service connection to the complainant’s residence without any prior notice.  The complainant being an illiterate woman was made to run pillar to post and finally she issued a legal notice for restoration of electricity connection.  Thus she sought for the complaint to be allowed as prayed for.

The crux of the written arguments filed by the opposite parties states that the residence of the complainant is located on Alapakkam, Tank Bund and the land belongs to Public Welfare Department Canal Land and it is a Poromboke land.  As per the provision of Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 no objection certificate not below the rank of Deputy Tahsildar should be enclosed for an Application for hut service. As the VAO has given a letter that no electricity supply should be given to the complainant’s premises the service connection request of the complainant could not be entertained.  Thus they sought for the dismissal of the complaint.

We perused the pleadings and material evidences produced by both parties. On appreciating the documents produced by the opposite parties it is seen as per Ex.B1 the concern VAO has clearly given a certificate that as complainant had constructed hut in Lake Poramboke ‘No Due Certificate‘ could not be issued.  Further Ex.B2 the letter issued by the Tahsildar also clearly stated that as the concerned premises is in water body poramboke,  No Due Certificate could not be given.  In such circumstances the version of the opposite parties that the huts in the water bodies were demolished as per the order of High Court and the complainant’s hut was one among them could not be brushed aside.  Further, when the complainant could not get No Due Certificate as required under the provision of “Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution code, 2004 clause 27(3) which,

provides for an application for LT supply (except agricultural categary) including that service shall be in for 1&3 Annexure III.

 Application for Hut Service (FORM-3) 

provides for self-declaration clause 7(d) states as follows. 

7(c) it is built in the porombake land and No Objection Certificate obtained from the Officer (not below the rand of Deputy Tahsildar is enclosed“.  We are of the view that no deficiency in service could be imposed upon the opposite parties in not providing the Electricity Service connection to the complainant’s premises.  Also the action of the opposite parties when taken in accordance with law could not be termed as deficiency in service.  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, she 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 21th day of February 2023.

        -Sd-                                                                                                                -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 11.07.2014 Copy of meter caution deposit and other charges for electricity connection. Xerox

Ex.A2 ............... Copy of electricity account summary. Xerox

Ex.A3 .............. Copy of unit reading card of the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A4 10.04.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A5 31.05.2019 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A6 ................. Photograph of complainant’s residence Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite parties:- 

 

Ex.B 26.04.2019 Report of the VAO. Xerox

Ex.B 27.05.2019 Copy of letter of Tahsildar, Madhuravoiyal, addressed to the complainant in connection with issue of NOC. Xerox

Ex.B 13.08.2019 Reply notice to the Advocate notice by Assistant Engineer, Alapakkam section. Xerox

Ex.B 26.09.2019 Copy of letter of Tahsildar, Madjuravoiyal addressed to the Assistant Engineer (O&M) regarding status of the land in S.No.579 – Government Water Land. Xerox

Ex.B ............... Photograph of the complainant’s hut. Xerox

Ex.B .............. Consumer ledger. Xerox

Ex.B 22.07.2014 Complainant service connection Application with Deed of Indemnity and family card. Xerox

 

      -Sd-                                                                                                               -Sd-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                  PRESIDENT