E.RANGANATHAN vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, TAMILNADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated the 5th day of May, 1998 in C.O.P. No. 72/97 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cuddalore.

THE appellant is the complainant while the respondents are the opposite parties. The complainant would claim that he is the owner of the Thatched House bearing Door No. 40, Reddy Chathira Street, situated at Thirupapuliyur, Cuddalore. He would claim that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the house alongwith the members of his family. He had also paid property tax for the said house.

He, it appears applied to the 3rd opposite party to obtain electricity service connection to his house. He was asked to procure a certificate from the Village Administrative Officer, Thirupapuliyur for proof of his residential qualification in the said house. As required he had also obtained a certificate from the Village Administrative Officer, Thirupapuliyur on 3.7.1997 and the same was sent alongwith the house tax receipt.

LATER on 1.8.1997, the 3rd opposite party received a sum of Rs. 800/- from the complainant for effecting the electricity service connection to his house and passed a receipt for the same. The details given in the receipt are : For CCD Rs. 100/-, S.C. Rs. 150/- MCD Rs. 250/- and DCG Rs. 300/- all totalling to Rs. 800/-. The complainant as such is entitled to electricity connection to his house and he is a consumer qua the opposite parties. The opposite parties are not giving electricity service connection to his house ever after receiving the amount for the same. They are evading to give the electricity service connection without any reasons. They are not entitled to do so.

THE complainant also caused a legal notice on 18.8.1997 demanding for effecting service connection to his house and also for damages. Till the filing of the complaint the opposite parties had not taken any steps to effect electricity service connection to his house. THE attitude of the opposite parties as such amounts to deficiency in service as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence the complaint had been filed before the Forum below to get an order directing the opposite parties to effect electricity service connection to his house and pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by way of damages for his physical and mental agony besides costs of the complaint. The objections filed by the opposite parties get reflected as below : The opposite parties admit the factum of the complainant applying for electricity connection to his house and complying with the other requisite formalities of payment of deposit amounts furnishing of house tax receipt and his residential qualification vouchsafed by a Village Administrative Officer certificate.

THEY would also state that Arya Vysya Sangam filed a suit in O.S. No. 236/97 on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddalore, besides filing two I.As. namely I.As. 1296/97 and 1297/97, the former one for impleading the Electricity Board as a party to the suit and the later one for seeking ex parte interim injunction against the Electricity Board preventing them from effecting service connection to the complainant''s house. THEY would further allege that they simply received notice in the aforesaid I.As. with a direction to them to appear before the said Munsif Court on 19.8.1997. THEY engaged a Counsel of their choice to contest the suit before the District Munsif Court. THEY would further allege because of the pendency of the suit before the Civil Court they were unable to give service connection to the complainant. THEY would further allege that since the civil suit is pending the complaint before the Forum below is not maintainable. THEY would also allege that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive, imaginary and arbitrary. For all these reasons they would pray for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.

THE District Forum after taking into consideration the relevant materials placed and of course after hearing the projection of hues of views of the respective parties through their learned Counsel ultimately dismissed the complaint without costs giving rise to the present action by the complainant. The complainant/appellant engaged a Counsel of his choice namely, learned Counsel Mr. V. Thandavamurthy. Likewise, on receipt of process the opposite parties also engaged a Counsel of their choice namely, learned Counsel Mr. V. Dhanasekar.

When this matter came up for hearing today, both the learned Counsel for the complainant/appellant and learned Counsel for the opposite parties/respondents as aforesaid are not present in Court. None of the parties were also present in Court to project their hues of views. The fact that the learned Counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents besides their parties were absent does not mean that we cannot dispose of the appeal on merits of course after going through the materials placed on record. We in fact perused the order of the Forum below and the materials placed on record.

EVEN at the outset, we may point out that the order of the Forum below is not sustainable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. The Forum below, it appears, did not understand the ambit and scope of the proceedings before the Civil Court and the Consumer Forum and that perhaps was the reason for the dismissal of the complaint. The suit in O.S. 236/97 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore, is one for the recovery of rent arrears of Rs. 2,850/- and for surrender of vacant possession. That suit was filed by one Ariya Vysya Sangam represented by the Secretary as plaintiff as against the complainant Ranganathan impleading him as the defendant. They also filed the interlocutory applications for impleading the opposite parties here as defendants 2 to 4 and also for a temporary injunction preventing the opposite parties from giving service connection to the complainant. This is evident from Ex. C6 which is nothing but the affidavit filed in support of the interlocutory application for impleading the opposite parties 1 to 3 as defendants 2 to 4 in the suit. It is an admitted fact as seen from the order of the Forum below that the application for impleading the opposite parties 1 to 3 as defendants 2 to 4 in this suit is pending before the District Munsiff Court, Cuddalore. What is further revealed is that no interim order of injunction had been granted by the said Court preventing the opposite parties 1 to 3 from giving service connection to the complainant who was the 1st defendant in the suit. As such there is no order from a Civil Court preventing the opposite parties from giving service connection to the complainant. The complainant is in lawful possession and enjoyment of his house, put up in the site belonging to the Thirupapuliyur Arya Vysya Sangam. He has also paid property tax for the said house in his own name. There is no dispute about that. That apart, he has also paid the necessary and requisite charges for giving service connection to his house. In such state of affairs, for the opposite parties to say that they were unable to give service connection to the complainant merely because the Civil Suit before the District Munsiff Court is pending is altogether untenable. This sort of an act on the part of the opposite parties is definitely deficiency in service on their part.

THE complainant also claimed damages in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. He has not placed any tangible material whatever for the quantification of the damages in a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. In such state of affairs it is but proper for us to reject the claim of damages. We, however, direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to give electricity service connection to the complainant within a month from the date of receipt of our order failing which the opposite parties will have to face consequences flowing from the wrath of the provisions as adumbrated under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This appeal, as such, deserves to be allowed in part. This appeal is allowed to the extent indicated as above and it will stand dismissed in other respects. We however make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal partly allowed.