Date of Filing      : 16.04.2022

                                                                                                                 Date of Disposal: 08.05.2023

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                  .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., B.L.,                                                      .....MEMBER -I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,.MCom., ICWA(Inter)., B.L.,                                    ....MEMBER-II

  

CC. No.188/2022

THIS MONDAY, THE 08th DAY OF MAY 2023

 

Mr.S.Murili Doss, S/o.Sami Doss,

No.2/96, Pandur Village,

Thiruvallur Taluk & District 631 203.                                          .........Complainant. 

                                                                          //Vs//

The Assistant Executive Engineer,

TNEB –Thiruvallur South,

(TANGEDCO),

Thiruvallur District 602 001.                                                          ...Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the complainant                                       :  Party in person.

Counsel for the opposite party                                   : M/s.V.S.Eswaran. Advocate. 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 28.04.2023 in the present of complainant who appeared in person  and M/s.V.S.Eswaran counsel for the opposite party 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 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service in not removing the LT line and poles from the complainant’s premises along with direction to pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

It was the case of the complainant that he applied for removel of the LT line running through his property (plot No.68 & 69 Sun City Nagar Phase 1) on 04.01.2021 with the opposite party. After visiting his spot, the officials on the same day, the complainant was requested to pay Rs.1000/- as fees which was promptly paid and a receipt was issued for the same.  Though there is provision to transfer 33kb line within 60 days even after lapse of 16 months the opposite party did not take any efforts to visit the spot and to estimate the charges to be paid by the complainant.  The earnest deposit was also not cancelled.  When the complainant sent legal notice to the opposite party it was stated by the opposite party that they could not find any 33kb line and also that the earnest deposit and registration was cancelled.  Thus the opposite party sought the complainant to make fresh registration by paying the earnest deposit.  As the said request was not amenable to the complainant the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.40,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service along with cost of the proceedings to the complainant. 

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

The opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations contending interaila that the alleged deficiencies do not fall under the ambit of Consumer Disputes Act.  It is true that the complainant has gave a petition for shifting the electricity poles along with lines from his land in the year 2021 and denied no action was taken his petition.  Due to Corona pandemic situation the opposite party was unable to visit the field area and hence the complainant petition not to be progressed. Based on the petition given by the complainant the opposite party’s employees went to the site in the month of November 2021 for inspection but at the time of inspection the complainant was not present and hence the site in which electricity poles to be shifted was not identified by the opposite party. Since there was no coordination from the complainant the opposite party could not identify the complainant’s land.  It was further submitted that the opposite party personally called and asked the complainant to identify his land for shifting the electricity poles but the complainant failed to do so. The opposite party’s employees explained the difficulties but due to non cooperation of complainant the opposite party’s employees could not shifted the electricity poles. The non shifting of the electricity poles was neither wilfull and nor wanton but only because of the non cooperation of the complainant.  The opposite party sent a letter dated 30.07.2022 to the complainant to identify the land site for shifting electricity poles.  Subsequently the opposite party visited the site along with the complainant on 10.08.2022.   Immediately estimation charge has been prepared for 2022-2023 year for shifting of electricity poles and it was informed to the complainant to pay the existing registration fees along with estimate charges but complainant refused to pay the existing registration fees stating that he had already paid the registration fees in the year 2021.  The opposite party employees explain to the complainant that the registration fees paid by the complainant has got expired. Hence the complainant has been asked to pay the new registration fees applicable to the revised cost date.  If the complainant pay the existing registration fees, along with estimated charges, the opposite party was ready to shift the electricity poles from the complainant’s land. But till date the complainant has not paid the registration fees for the revised cost date and hence the opposite party could not able to shift the electricity post from the complainant’s land. There is no deficiency in service by the opposite party.  The complainant had not shown any loss or negligence or deficiency in service requiring interference or indulgence by this commission.  Therefore it is clear the complainant has filed this complaint before this commission for gaining some sort of unlawful compensation and had caused frustration to the opposite party 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 Ex.A16 on their side.  on the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 on their side.

Points for consideration:-

Whether the allegations made by the complainant against the opposite party with regard to non-shifting of 33kb line from the complainant’s premises was proved by him and whether the same amounted to deficiency in service?

If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;

Letter written by the complainant to the opposite party dated 04.01.2021 was marked as Ex.A1;

Bill issued by the opposite party for payment dated 04.01.2021 was marked as Ex.A2;

Reminder letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party dated 31.01.2022 was marked as Ex.A3;

Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A4;

Letter issued by the complainant to the Superintendent Engineer, Kancheepuram dated 19.03.2022 was marked as Ex.A5;

Acknowledgment card for proof of delivery were marked as Ex.A6 & Ex.A7;

Legal notice issued by the complainant to the Assistant Executive Engineer dated 04.07.2022 was marked as Ex.A8;

Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery were marked as Ex.A9 to Ex.A12;

Reply letter issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer dated 08.07.2022 was marked as Ex.A13;

Reply letter issued by Assistant Engineer dated 30.07.2022 was marked as Ex.A14;

Sketch was marked as Ex.A15;

Track consignment for proof of delivery was marked as Ex.A16;

On the side of opposite party the following documents were submitted in proof of thier defence;

Letter sent by Assistant Executive Engineer dated 08.07.2022 was marked as Ex.B1;

Letter sent by Assistant Engineer dated 30.07.2022 was marked as Ex.B2;

Heard both parties. The crux of the oral arguments adduced by the party in person/complainant is that though he had applied on 04.01.2021 for shifting of 33kb line from his plots 68 & 69 in Sun City Nagar phase 1, till today the opposite party did not take steps to provide the same.  He submitted that by paying Rs.1,000/- as fees and obtaining receipt he becomes a consumer and hence could very well maintain a consumer complaint before this commission. It was argued by him that even on the very first day he took the opposite party persons to his plots for identification.  However they did not initiate any steps for the reason best known to them . As he was not ready for the same no shifting of 33kb line for his plots was carried out. 

On the other hand, the opposite party argued that the main reason for the delay is due to COVID -19 situations and that they could not identify the complainant’s plots.  It was submitted by him that in the month of November 2021 the concerned officials visited the plots of the complainant.  However, they could not identify the same and on 30.07.2022 a letter was sent to the complainant to assist them in identifying the property.  As the registration charges already made got cancelled, he was asked to register afresh by paying the charges.  Thus it was submitted as no fresh registration was done by the complainant they could not proceed further and hence there is no fault or deficiency in service on their part and sought for the complaint to be dismissed.  

We perused the entire pleadings and materials produced by both parties. The request letter by the complainant to the Assistant Executive Engineer for shifting of the poles from the complainant’s plot was marked as Ex.A1 dated 04.01.2021.  The charges paid for the same on the same day was marked as Ex.A2.  The reminder letter dated 31.01.2022 was marked as Ex.A3. From the above documents it is found that though a request was made on 04.01.2021 along with the requisite fee no action was taken by the opposite party until 31.01.2022 till the reminder was sent.  However, the opposite party had come up with defence that in November 2021 they went for inspection but could not found the complainant’s site. There was no proof for the same.  If at all the opposite party could not find the exact place they ought to have intimated immediately to the complainant to assist them to identify the property.  Proving the defence taken to be a false statement, they have come up with a statement that on 30.07.2022 (ExA14) they had issued a letter to the complainant to assist them to find out the property as they could not found the same.  There is no plausible explanation by the opposite party for the delay of nearly eight months to issue the letter dated 30.07.2022 after the alleged inspection in the month of November 2021.  It is stated by the opposite party that the registration fees paid by the complainant had expired as per section 34(4) of Tamil Nadu Electricity regulatory commission Distribution code 2004 and that if the complainant pays the existing registration fees, along with estimate charge they were ready to shift the electricity poles from the complainant’s land.  However, no intimation was given to the complainant stating that the registration he did on 04.01.2021 has got cancelled.  If at all the same has been cancelled it is to be inferred that it was only due to the inaction on the part of the opposite party and not due to any fault on the part of complainant.  The opposite party did not provide any reason for the cancellation of the registration made by the complainant on 04.01.2021.  Thus on entire analysis of the facts and events we could hold that for the Application made on 04.01.2021 by the complainant the action was taken by the opposite party only after the request letters dated 31.01.2022, 19.03.2022, 21.03.2022 and legal notice dated 04.07.2022 and also the opposite party acted only on 08.07.2022 by way of giving a reply (Ex.B1) after a lapse of 18 months which delay was not satisfactorily by them.  Though COVID -19 situations was cited as reason being an Essential Service Provider the said reason could not be accepted as a proper defence.  If at all the defence of the opposite party that they tried to find out the complainant’s property in the month of November 2021 but could not found was taken to be true, no evidentiary proof was submitted by them and also no reason was given by them for the intimation given only on 30.07.2022 after a lapse of eight months that the property could not be identified.  In such circumstances when there is no satisfactorily explanation given on the part of opposite party for the huge delay in initiating steps to carry out the request made by the complainant even receipt of necessary charges the inaction of opposite party clearly amounts to deficiency in service.

Point No.2:- 

With regard to the relief to be granted to the complainant we direct the opposite party to shift the electric poles along with the electric line from the complainant’s property within four weeks.  Further for making the complainant to suffer for more than two years by not carrying out the request made by him even after receipt of the necessary charges we award a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant.  We also award Rs.5,000/- as cost. 

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing them

a) to shift the electric  poles along with the electric line from the complainant’s property within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order; 

b)  To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant. 

c)  To pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

 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 08th day of May 2023.

 

   Sd/-                                                           Sd/-                                                   Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                            MEMBER-I                                     PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 Letter written by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A2 Bill issued by the opposite party for payment. Xerox

Ex.A3 Reminder letter sent by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A4 Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery. Xerox

Ex.A5 Letter issued by the complainant to the Superintendent Engineer, Kancheepuram. Xerox

Ex.A6 Acknowledgment card for proof of delivery. Xerox

Ex.A7 Acknowledgment card for proof of delivery. Xerox

Ex.A8 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the Assistant Executive Engineer. Xerox

Ex.A9 Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery. Xerox

Ex.A10 Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery. Xerox

Ex.A11 Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery. Xerox

Ex.A12 Acknowledgement card for proof of delivery. Xerox

Ex.A13 Reply letter issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer. Xerox

Ex.A14 Reply letter issued by Assistant Engineer. Xerox

Ex.A15 Sketch. Xerox

Ex.A16 Track consignment for proof of delivery. Xerox

 

      List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

 

Ex.B1 08.07.2022 Letter sent by Assistant Executive Engineer. Xerox

Ex.B2 30.07.2022 Letter sent by Assistant Engineer. Xerox

 

    Sd/-                                                              Sd/-                                               Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                               MEMBER-I                                  PRESIDENT