Alacrity Foundations Ltd vs Tamilnadu State Electricity Board

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE complainant is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and is engaged in the construction of residential and non -residential apartments. It has so far built about 75 apartment complexes in Madras. It is dealing with the opposite party, Electricity Board in the matter of securing electricity connection for the constructions. The supply of electricity is a vital and necessary service for the housing industry. As per Clause 6 of the terms and conditions for the supply of electric energy the requisition for the supply should be made at least one month in advance of the requirement. Under Clause 8, the consumer should permit the opposite party to install the requisite equipments such as transformers switch gears etc. in the consumer''s premises and for this purpose the consumer should allow, if required, use of any land free of cost. These equipments will, however, continue to remain as the property of the opposite party. The gravemen of the charge of the complainant is that the opposite party has been inordinately delaying service connection to the apartments constructed by the complainant. As instances of delay the complainant refers to the Sneha Sadan Apartments, Mylapore, Madras, Lakshyavan Apartments in Sreenagar Colony, Madras and Dhruva Nivas, Sreenagar Colony, Madras, in respect of which connections have been given after inordinate delay. But it is needless to refer to these facts, since no relief is claimed in respect of these apartments. The claim is only in respect of a Complex known as ''Atandra'' at Door No. 15, T. Nagar, Madras, The complainant made an application for connection to this Complex on 3.4.90, but the service connection was effected only 26.9.91. In order to avoid delay on account of non -availability of materials, the complainant supplied some materials to the value of Rs. 55,854/ -. It has also offered free of cost space within the Complex for putting up the distribution transformer. Despite all these facilities offered, it has taken more than one year and five months for the opposite party to give the electric connection. On account of this delay the complainant has been put to much loss. The Complex, was ready for occupation in January ''91, but for want of electricity connection it could not be occupied before December ''91. The rental value for 32 residential flats measuring 32,000 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs. 2/ - per sq. ft. per month for 9 months comes to Rs. 5,76,000/ -. The monthly value for office premises measuring 12,500 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs. 4/ - per sq. ft. per month for 9 months comes to Rs. 4,50,000/ -. The expenses incurred by the complainant in supplying materials comes to Rs. 55,854/ -. Deducting therefrom 25% of office occupancy for 6 months due to limited power supply at Rs. l,12,500/ -.The net loss suffered by the complainant comes to Rs. 9,69,354/ -. The delay on the part of the opposite party amounts to gross deficiency of service and this complaint is for claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,69,354/ -. The opposite party has filed a detailed counter. Electric energy is supplied subject to the provisions of the Indian Electricity Act and the rules framed thereunder and under Section 49 of the Electricity Supply Act. It is pointed out that all builders of flats including the complainant were sanctioned electricity supply temporarily for the construction work. On the completion of the construction and before occupation the owners apply for electric energy. If the supply is a mere service connection without any major work, then it will be effected even within 30 days, as contemplated under Rule 6 of the Terms and Conditions of the supply of electricity. If the work involves erection of transformer and laying of high voltage resisting cables, there will be considerable delay as it involves preparation of estimates, sanction by various authorities and execution of work after procuring required materials. The condition that requisition for supply of electric energy must be made at least one month in advance from the date of requirement does not create any right for putting up distribution transformer within one month. The period of one months stipulates the minimum period required. The allegation that there was inordinate delay in supplying electric energy to the various complexes is denied. In respect of ''Atandra Complex the complainant applied for and got temporary service connection on 22.12.89 and this temporary supply continued for about 20 months. The construction work continued up to September ''91 till the permanent supply was effected. The opposite party received 33 applications from out of the owners of the flats in the complex and one application from the complainant. All of them were registered on 18.10.90. The estimate was sanctioned on 11.2.91. The security deposit was called for on 19.2.91 and deposited by the complainant on 21.2.91. After obtaining the work order and collecting the materials, the work started and the poles were erected on 24.4.91. The structural works were completed on 27.5.91. The earthing work was completed on 25.6.91. Due to non -availability of the transformer in the MEDC Central Circle, the transformer was diverted from the other circle on 30.7.91. High tension cable was laid on 5.8.91. Due to non - availability of XLPE cable terminations, the parties supplied the materials and the work was completed on 27.8.91. Straight joints works for tapping from the existing HT cables was completed on 14.9.91 and the transformer was energised on 16.9.91 and service was effected on 27.9.91, after service connection charges were paid by the complainants on 25.9.91. The opposite party in order to give intermediate relief to the complainant, an advance supply for a load of 10 KWs was effected during March 91 itself, besides availing of temporary supply for construction purposes for a load of 4.5 KWs. The building was not in complete shape for occupation in January ''91. The complainant voluntarily supplied the materials that it would not make any claim for the cost and the complainant is not, therefore, entitled to claim costs for these materials. The party has given an undertaking in stamped papers to spare the space for free of cost and free of rent with free access to the transformer structure. All efforts were sincerely taken to effect the supply as early as possible and there has been no deficiency of service. The complainant did not sustain any loss or damage. The amount of compensation claimed is imaginary.

EXHIBITS Al to A24 and B1 and B2 are marked by consent. Proof affidavits have been filed by the parties. No oral evidence has been let in on either side.

THE points that arise for consideration are: (i) Whether there has been any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the opposite party? (ii) To what relief, if any, is the complainant entitled?

Point 1: The complainant is a company engaged in the construction of apartments. It has put up a building complex known as ''Atandra'' at Door No. 15, Thirumalai Pillai Road, T. Nagar, Madras. It has made an application to the opposite party for service connection to the apartments on 3.4.90, but the service connection has been effected only on 26.9.91 nearly one year and 5 months thereafter. According to the complainant this has resulted in heavy loss and this complaint is filed claiming compensation. It is the case of the complainant that under Rule 6 of the terms and conditions for the supply of electric energy notified by the opposite party, the requisition for supply of electric energy should be made at least one month from the date of requirement and hence supply must be effected within one month from the date of the application, whereas in the instant case supply has been effected after a delay of one year and 5 months. Per contra it is the contention of the opposite party that if the supply of electric energy is a mere service connection without any major important work, it will be effected within 30 days as contemplated under Rule 6, but where the work involves erection of transformer and laying of high voltage resisting cables, there will be considerable delay arising from preparation of estimates, sanction of estimates by various authorities, procurement of materials and execution of work. We are inclined to accept this contention of the opposite party for where bulk supply of electric energy is applied for as in the instant case, a new transformer has to be erected and high voltage resisting cables have to be laid. This involves preparation and sanction of the estimates, procurement of materials and execution of the work. The complainant has filed two affidavits, from S. Ramasamy and R. Varadarajan, Engineers, formerly employed in the Tamilnadu Electricity Board. According to their affidavits, the work of erection and commissioning of 250 KVA pole mounted transformer should not involve more than 2 weeks, provided all the materials of hardware and plant are available. The period mentioned in these two affidavits refer to the actual execution of the work after procurement of all the available materials. The case here starts from the preparation of estimates, sanctioning of the estimates and procurement of the materials which will necessarily take a longer time. We hold, therefore, that Rule 6 under which service connection will ordinarily be effected within a period of one month can have no application when the work involves erection of transformer and laying of high voltage resisting cables.

BUT the question is even assuming that this work involves the erection of transformer and laying of high voltage resisting cables, whether the time taken in the instant case is reasonable or whether it amounts to deficiency of service. The chronology of events is as follows: Date of Application : 3.4.90 Registration of application : 18.10.90 Sanctioning of estimate : 11.2.91 Security Deposit called on : 19.2.91 Security Deposit made on : 21.2.91 Work started on 24.4.91 Structural work completed : 27.5.91 Bus Bar arrangements and earthing works completed on : 27.6.91 Transformer erected on : 30.7.91 HT cable laid on : 5.8.91 Work completed on : 27.8.91 Straight joints works completed on : 14.9.91 Transformer energised on 16.9.91 Service effected on : 27.9.91

A reference to the above dates would show that the opposite party has taken more than 6 months for registering the applications for service connection. The applications have been made on 3.4.90 and they have been registered only on 18.10.90. No explanation whatsoever is offered for this inordinate delay in merely registering the applications and this certainly amounts to gross deficiency of service. It has taken another 3 months and 20 days for the preparation and sanctioning of the estimates and we are not informed as to why such a long time must be taken therefor. The security deposit has been made on 21.2.91 but the work has started only on 24.4.91 after a delay of more than 2 months. The structure work has been completed on 27.5.91, bus bar arrangements and earthing works completed on 27.6.91 and the transformer has been erected on 30.7.91. At every stage there has been a delay of one month. It is stated that the transformer was not immediately available in the Central Circle and it had to be diverted from another Circle. That could have been done much earlier even at the time when the work was started in April ''91. the HT cables have been laid on 5.8.91, but because of non -availability of XLPE cables, the termination work has taken some time and it has been completed only with the materials supplied by the complainant. This may be condoned, but there is absolutely no reason for the delay in starting the work after payment of the security deposit. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that there has been inordinate and unavoidable delay of more than 10 months in the completion of this work. This amounts to deficiency of service and negligence.

POINT (ii): It is the contention of the complainant that the apartments could not be occupied for want of electric connection and it claims rental value of 32 residential flats measuring 32,000 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs. 2 per sq. ft. for 9 months which comes to Rs. 5,76,000/ -. It claims rental value for office premises measuring 12,500 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs. 4 per sq. ft. per month for 9 months which comes to Rs. 4,50,000/ -. But it must be remembered that even at the time of starting of the construction by the complainant, temporary connection has been provided for construction work and this connection has continued till the permanent connection was provided in September ''91. Further during March ''91 an advance supply for a load of 100 KWs was effected in addition to the temporary supply for construction purposes of a load of 45 KWs. This supply must certainly have been available to the complainant and apartment owners and it cannot, therefore, be said that the complainant and the owners were unable to occupy the premises for want of electric energy. We are not, therefore, inclined to grant any compensation on the ground that the apartments could not be occupied for want of electric energy. However, the complainant is entitled to compensation for mental pain and agony in that it had to wait for nearly one year and five months to get the permanent connection and we think that a nominal compensation of Rs. 10,000/ - will be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The complainant has also claimed a sum of Rs. 55,854/ - being the value of the materials supplied by it to the opposite party for effecting the service connection. The case of the opposite party is that the complainant supplied these materials free on the understanding that it would not claim costs therefor. Exhibit A13 is the letter written by the complainant to the opposite party dated 6.8.91. It is stated therein that the complainant would supply the required materials of ISI quality for the complex for the Board side as well as consumer side and that it would not make any claim for the costs of the materials to be supplied by them at a later date or any right over the materials though the materials were supplied by them. In view of this understanding, it is not open to the complainant to claim the value of the materials supplied. It is contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that this understanding was only in respect of items mentioned in Exhibit A13 namely 26 meters 372 x 240 sq. mm. low tension aluminum cable and 2 numbers Dividers, while according to the opposite party this understanding is in respect of all the materials supplied by the complainant. We are inclined to accept the contention of the opposite party on this aspect. Further in paragraph 40 of the complaint, the complainant has mentioned 7 items of materials supplied of which item No. 1 (2 sets of Dividers) is specifically covered by Exhibit A13 letter dated 6.8.91. Again excepting in respect of item No. 5 (4 Nos. Aluminium Switch and clamps) to the value of Rs. 1,100/ -, there are no bills for the other items. We, therefore, reject the claim of the complainant for payment of the materials supplied by the complainant to the opposite party for effecting the service connection.

IN the result we direct the opposite party, (i) to pay to the complainant Rs. 10,000/ - as compensation for mental pain and agony suffered by the complainant on account of the delay in effecting service connection to the complainant''s building Complex at ''Atandra'' at Door No. 15, Thirumalai Road, T. Nagar, Madras, (ii) to pay to the complainant Rs. l.000/ - as costs. Complaint allowed with costs.