Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/156/2016

R.Lalitha - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board - Opp.Party(s)

-

19 Dec 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 21.04.2016

                                                                          Date of Order : 27.11.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.156/2016

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 27^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018

                                 

R. Lalitha,

W/o. Mr. V. Ramachandran,

No.29, F2, Prasanthi Apartment,

3^rd  Main Road, Vijayanagar,

Velachery,

Chennai – 600 042.                                                       .. Complainant.                                                          ..Versus..

 

The Chairman,

The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

No.800, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 002.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

          

For complainant                  : Party in person

Counsel for opposite party : M/s. R. Amernath Rao Khande & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.2,982/- expended towards the cost of materials utilised for restoration of Electricity Board and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony to the complainant.

 

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

 

The complainant submits that there was a flood during the year 2015 on 01.12.2015.  The electricity service cable from the post to the complainant’s apartment got damaged.  The said damaged was duly informed to the Chairman, Electricity Boards and requested for restoration of electric supply in the complainant’s apartment.  The Electricity Board staff made temporary arrangement by purchasing overhead cable by the complainant and other apartment owners and the electricity supply was restored on 11.12.2015 after a lapse of 10 days.   Further the complainant submits that totally a sum of Rs.17,893/- was expended to restore permanent supply of electricity for the said apartment.  The complainant alone has incurred sum of Rs.2,982/- towards restoration of electricity supply.  The complainant further submits that subsequent reminders including E-mail to Chairman of Electricity Board was sent, but no reply was received and no action was taken to make it permanent by laying new cable.   On 01.03.2013, the complainant has purchased the cable at their cost and engaged labour to make cable ducts etc. and supply was restored.  In this connection, the complainant submit a paper cutting in New Indian Express dated:19.02.2016 which is self explanatory.   The act of the opposite party caused great mental agony.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.   The opposite party would states that the complainant Mrs. R. Lalitha has not made any complaint to the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at any point of time.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that none of the documents filed by the complainant does not bear her name established that the complainant has not incurred any amount for such alleged restoration of electricity connection.  Further the opposite party states that instead there are names of N.S. Jayakumar and on whose name there is an order and estimate bill and not purchase bill for Rs.6,665/- dated:21.03.2016 and another bill for Rs.1,850/- Sri Ganesh Hardware, dated:01.03.2016 for Prasanthi Flats and there is another bill from Mahaveer Electricals for Rs.2,253/- dated:11.12.2015 without purchaser’s name.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has no locus standi to claim any amount expended by others.  Further the opposite party states that admittedly in the year December 2015, there was a flood causing severe damage to the Electricity connection, installations etc.  In order to set right the damages in a war footing nature and to restore the electric supply either temporarily or permanently, the TANGEDCO mobilized huge men and materials with the active help of the general public in the localities.  

3.     As per regulation 38 the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 which reads as follows:-

“38  RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF ELECTRICITY:

The consumer shall curtail, stagger, restrict, regulate or altogether ceases to use electricity when so directed by the Licensee, if the power position or any other emergency in the Licensee’s power system or as per the directives of SLDC/SSLDC warrants such a course of action.  The Licensee shall not be responsible for any loss or inconvenience caused to the customer as a result of such curtailment, staggering, restriction, regulation or cessation of use of electricity.  Notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement / undertaking executed by a consumer with the Licensee or in the tariff applicable to him, the consumer shall restrict the use of electricity in terms of his / her maximum demand and / or energy consumption in the manner and for the period as may be made by the Licensee on the instructions of State Government or the Commission”.

4.     Further the opposite party states that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party under any circumstances in a war footing nature, the opposite party restored the electricity to the consumers.  As per rule 30 (2) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, it is made for the purpose of safety and security of the electrical installation and not at all intended for payment of cost etc by the Electricity Board. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

5.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and no documents marked on the side of the opposite party.

6.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,982/- expended towards the cost of materials utilised for restoration of Electricity Board as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony as prayed for?

7.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the complainant also.   Perused the records namely the complainant, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that admittedly, there was a flood during the year 2015.  The electricity service cable from the electric post to the complainant’s apartment got damaged.  The said damage was duly informed to the Chairman, Electricity Board and requested for restoration of electric supply as per Ex.A1 & Ex.A2.  The Electricity Board staff made temporary arrangement by purchasing overhead cable by the complainant and other apartment owners and the electricity supply was restored on 11.12.2015.  But the complainant has not produced any record.   Further the contention of the complainant is that totally a sum of Rs.17,893/- was expended to restore permanent supply of electricity for the said apartment.  The complainant alone has expended  a sum of Rs.2,982/-.  As per Rule 30 (2) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, the opposite party alone shall replace the service lines at their cost.  In this case, the complainant and other owners of the apartment expended the amount has not been reimbursed by the opposite party.   But on a careful perusal of records, all the bills are not in the name of the complainant.  A sum of Rs.6,665/- also stands in the name of one Mr. N.S. Jeyakumar only.   As per Rule 30 (2) also absolutely silent regarding the materials and the facts.  The complainant is claiming refund of a sum of Rs.2,982/- expended towards replacement charges and a compensation of Rs.10,000/-.

8.     The learned Counsel for the opposite party would contend that the complainant Mrs. R. Lalitha has not made any complaint to the Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at any point of time.  Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 are the complaints sent by one Mr. V. Ramachandran, who has not filed any case in this Forum. On the basis of the letter addressed by one Mr. V. Ramachandran, the complainant cannot claim any relief for her own. Further the contention of the opposite party is that none of the documents filed by the complainant does not bear her name established that the complainant has not incurred any amount for such alleged restoration of electricity connection.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has no locus standi to claim any amount expended by others.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that admittedly in the year December 2015, there was a flood causing severe damage to the Electricity connection, installations etc.  In order to set right the damages in a war footing nature and to restore the electric supply either temporarily or permanently, the TANGEDCO mobilized huge men and materials with the active help of the general public in the localities.  

9.     As per regulation 38 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code, 2004 which reads as follows:-

“38. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF ELECTRICITY:

The consumer shall curtail, stagger, restrict, regulate or altogether ceases to use electricity when so directed by the Licensee, if the power position or any other emergency in the Licensee’s power system or as per the directives of SLDC/SSLDC warrants such a course of action.  The Licensee shall not be responsible for any loss or inconvenience caused to the customer as a result of such curtailment, staggering, restriction, regulation or cessation of use of electricity.  Notwithstanding anything contained in any agreement / undertaking executed by a consumer with the Licensee or in the tariff applicable to him, the consumer shall restrict the use of electricity in terms of his / her maximum demand and / or energy consumption in the manner and for the period as may be made by the Licensee on the instructions of State Government or the Commission”.

10.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party under any circumstances.  In a war footing nature, the opposite party restored the electricity to the consumers.  As per rule 30 (2) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, it is made for the purpose of safety and security of the electrical installation and not at all intended for payment of cost etc by the Electricity Board.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant has not established the deficiency in service committed by the opposite party and the complaint has to be dismissed.  

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 27^th day of November 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	30.12.2015	Copy of the letter to the Chairman, TNEB
Ex.A2	18.01.2016	Copy of the letter to the Chairman, TNEB
Ex.A3	19.02.2016	Copy of Indian Express Newspaper cutting
Ex.A4	30.12.2015	Copy of courier Acknowledgement
Ex.A5	20.01.2016	Copy of courier Acknowledgement
Ex.A6	11.12.2015	Copy of bill
Ex.A7	01.03.2016	Copy of bill

 

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT