Date of filing : 01.07.2014
Date of order : 29.08.2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, VELLORE
PRESENT: THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A., B.L. PRESIDENT
THIRU. R. ASGHAR KHAN, B.Sc., B.L. MEMBER-I
SELVI. I. MARIAN RAJAM ANUGRAHA, M.B.A., MEMBER-II
MONDAY THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.32/2014
S. Yasothammal,
W/o. Subramani,
Door No. 9/74, Avaiyar Street,
Shenbakkam,
Vellore – 632 008. …Complainant
-Vs-
1. The Superintending Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Kadtpai,
Vellore – 6.
2. The Assistant Divisional Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Shenbakkam,
Vellore – 8.
3. The Junior Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Shenbakkam,
Vellore – 8.
4. Rajkumar (Military Rtd)
No.5/73A, Avaiyar Street,
Shenbakkam,
Vellore -8. …Opposite parties
Complainant : Tmt. S. Yasothammal (Party-in-person)
Counsel for opposite parties 1 to 3 : Thiru. V. Natanasigamani
(Government Pleader)
Fourth opposite party : Set exparte ( 30.06.2022)
ORDER
THIRU. A. MEENAKSHI SUNDARAM, B.A.,B.L. PRESIDENT
The complaint has been filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Complainant has prayed this Hon’ble Commission to direct the opposite parties to provide a new connection to the plaintiff in the respondents of the schedule mentioned properly and to pay sum of Rs.85,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.85,000/- towards cost of the basis of electric wire and electric charges.
1.The case of the complaint is briefly as follows:
The complainant had applied for grant of electric connection with the opposite party in single phase for domestic purpose. The application number is K.No. U.M.P/E&B/S/F162/11.12 dated 06.03.2012. The offered of opposite party had visited the spot and accepted the request and sent a letter to the complainant on 06.03.2012 and 08.03.2012. The complainant completed wiring work, fixed the main board and main switch and the service wire of about 100 feet from the house, to the electric pole outside the house. On 08.03.2012, after inspection made by the Junior Engineer of opposite party. The opposite party said that the service cannot be effected as there are high tension wires, which were very close to the low tension wire. But, there are many other connections in the street which was given with 2 feet nearer to the house and similarly other residents in the same street were given service connection from the very same pole. Due to the non effect of service connection to the complainant, she had to spend more than Rs. 85,000/- (Rupees Eighty Five Thousand). Hence, there is deficiency of service by the E.B. officials. Hence, this complaint.
2. The written version of opposite parties 1 to 3 are as follows:
The complainant is not a consumer to the opposite party as defined U/s 2(1) (d) (i) of The Protection Act. The complainant neither entered into any contract for sale of goods nor hired any service for consideration with the opposite party. The opposite party was not privy to the transaction alleged to have happened between the complainant and the opposite party. The complaint against this opposite party is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in law and is liable to be dismissed in-limini. The application was presented by the complainant, for grant of electric service connection, in the single phase 1A connection for domestic purpose. As per the advice of this opposite party, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 50/- as registration fee which is mandatory for all petitions. As per the petition submitted by the complainant, the officials from the electricity department inspected the complainant’s house and they found that the house has been constructed near the High-tension line which is against the Indian Electricity rules 1956 (Section 80 ) and hence this opposite party has rejected the application for Electricity connection and also this respondent sent a letter dated 08-03-12 to the complainant stating all the facts. Even now this opposite party is ready to provide electricity connection to the complainant, if the complainant fulfils the conditions as per section 80 of Indian Electricity rules 1956. This opposite party submits that the complainant has already filed the suit before the District Munsif, Vellore in O.S.No. 521/2012 and the same has been dismissed and then the complainant preferred the appeal before the Sub- Ordinate Judge, Vellore in A.S.No. 14/2014 and the appeal was also dismissed on 28-11-2014 and at the same time the complainant has also filed this complaint before this Honourable Forum for the same cause of action and hence the complaint has to be dismissed as Res judicata. The opposite party submits that the complaint filed this complainant is only to harass this opposite party. The opposite party submits that the present complaint is filed without any cause of action. The opposite party submits that the complainant is not entitled for compensation U/s 14 (1) (d) of the Act, as she failed to place any material records in order to substantiate her claim for compensation against the opposite party. The opposite party submits that the complaint is not maintainable since the complainant is not a consumer and there is no relationship as a consumer or the customer and there is no deficiency or failure in service. It is therefore prayed that this Commission may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with costs and thus render justice.
3 In this case, even though the notice was received by the fourth opposite party from this commission, the fourth opposite party did not appear before this commission. No representation on the side of the fourth opposite party and therefore, the fourth opposite party was called absent and was set exparte.
4. Proof affidavit of complainant filed. Ex.A1 to Ex.A21 were marked. Proof affidavit of opposite parties not filed. Documents not filed. Written argument of complainant filed. Written argument of opposite parties not filed. Oral argument of both sides heard.
5. The Points that arises for consideration are:
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite
parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for relief as claimed in the complaint?
3. To what relief, the complainant is entitled to?
6. POINT NOS.1&2: The complainant made an application for grant of Electricity connection in single phase 1A tariff for domestic purpose. Accordingly an application was submitted and a sum of Rs.50/- was paid as an application fees which was marked as Ex.A2. After receipt of the application, if the opposite party inspected the complainant’s house and gave a report dated 08.03.2012, stating that near the complainant’s house, a high tension wire was passing. Therefore there is a possibility of loss of lives. Therefore the complainant is advised to take necessary steps to change the said high tension wire at her own cost within 7 days. If not the application would revoked and any further notice as against which the complainant referred Civil suit before the District Munsif Court, Vellore and the same was dismissed said appeal also dismissed. Thereafter the complainant approached this Hon’ble Commission by way of this complaint, for granting electricity connection. The only defects raised by the opposite party is that there is a high tension wire near by the complainant’s house and it should be shifted at the complainant’s cost. If at, all, the complainant shifted the high tension wire, the opposite party is ready to provide the electricity connection. Further the complainant also suppressed the material facts that there is a Civil Suit already decided as against her. In this regard, we consider that Consumer Protection Act is additional remedy and it is not barred by any other Civil remedy, in view of the Judgement rendered by,
THE HON’BLE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
In R.P.NO.1029 of 2004
National Seeds Corpon. Ltd.
Vs
Pv Krishna Reddy
Held that,
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeks to provide remedy in addition to the remedy provided under other Acts.
Therefore, the Consumer Commission have jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. In so far, as the shifting of the high tension wire is concerned, it is duty of the opposite party to shift the high tension wire. It is pertinent to note that they did not say who laid the said high tension wire near the complainant’s house. This is not the grand for rejection of complainant service connection. Further the complainant proved that service connection. She has also service connection already had one more connection in the very same building. There are numerous connection from the very same pole, in which she is claiming electricity from the opposite party. Therefore the contention raised by the opposite party does not hold good. Therefore, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence, these Point Nos. 1 and 2 are decided in favour of the complainant.
7. Point No. 3: As we have decided in Point Nos. 1 and 2 that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are hereby directed to give a new connection to the complainant and the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. Hence, this Point No.3 is also answered accordingly.
8. In the result this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are hereby directed to give a new connection to the complainant and the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly or severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) as compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of receipt of this order to till the date of realization.
Dictated to the steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 29th August 2022
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
SMEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
LIST OF COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1-06.03.2012 – Copy of to pay registration fees Rs.50/- by Engineer TNEB
K.No.UM, PEP/Shen/R162/1112
Ex.A2-08.03.2012 – Copy of receipt for payment of Rs.50/- for registration
Ex.A3-08.03.2012 - Copy of refused by Assistant Engineer TNEB Shenbakkam
Ex.A4-03.04.2014 - Copy of appeal letter to the superintendent engineer TNEB
Katpadi, Vellore-6.
Ex.A5 - Copy of The E.B line which pass through Avaiyar Street,
Shenbakkam (Rough Sketch)
Ex.A6 - Copy of acknowledgement Card received by the
Superintendent Engineer TNEB Katpadi, Vellore -6.
Ex.A7-13.03.2003 - Copy of No objection Certificate issued by Corporation office
Vellore 13.03.2003
Ex.A8-01.07.2002 - Copy of certificate issued by V.A.O, Shenbakkam, Vellore
Ex.A9-29.03.2003 - Copy of receipt issued by T.N.E.B. for Rs.1570/-
Ex.A10-29.03.2003 - Copy of receipt issued by T.N.E.B for Rs.20/-
Ex.A11 - Copy of Ack. By Spl. Chief Minister Cell
Ex.A12 - Photo (No.1)
Ex.A13 - Photo (No.1)
Ex.A14 - Photo (No.1)
Ex.A15 - Photo (No.1)
Ex.A16 - Photo (No.1)
Ex.A17 - Photo (No.1)
Ex.A18 - Photo (No.1)
Ex.A19 - Electricity payment card
Ex.A20 - Electricity payment card
Ex.A21-16.12.2016 - Electricity two receipts for Rs.170/- & Rs.470/-
LIST OF OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS: -NIL-
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
SMEMBER – I MEMBER – II PRESIDENT
