EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD vs K.R.MANI

THIS First Appeal is directed against the order dated 5.8.93 passed by the State Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras allowing the complaint and granting a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant besides costs of Rs. 2,000/- against Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Ors. who are Appellants herein.

THE facts in brief are these. The Complainant is running an industry under the name and style of M/s} Omega Granite. He was sanctioned and having electric supply for a load of 40 H.P. He applied for an additional load of 80 H.P. on 27.5.90. On demand, he remitted a sum of Rs. 12,250/- on 16.8.90 as earnest money for the additional load applied for. After verifying all the relevant things, the first Appellant passed an order on 1.12.90 sanctioning the supply for additional load of 89 H.P. The Complainant subsequently paid on 25.4.91 a sum of Rs. 6,440/- as estimated cost of work. The Complainant alleged that to satisfy the conditions of supply he had installed the machines at huge cost and registered his readiness but the Opposite Parties deliberately delayed in effecting the additional load of 89 H.P. for obvious reasons and ulterior motives. The Opposite Parties adopted unfair trade practice and with dishonest intention disconnected the existing load falsely alleging that an authorised load of 24 H.P. was used by him and demanded a sum of Rs. 19,900/ -. The Complainant paid the amount under protest but the Opposite Parties failed to restore the connection. The Complainant filed a suit to declare the assessment notice as null and void and for mandatory injunction to restore the connection. The connection was restored only on 7.5.92. The Complainant claimed that he suffered a loss of Rs. 6,99,655.50 as a result of violations committed by the Opposite Parties in delaying the connection of the additional load viz. only connected on 31st July, 1992 for which the Complainant sought compensation/damages. The Opposite Parties in their version pleaded that the alleged delay is not extraordinary or inordinate, that the work had to be taken up as per priority, that the work for extension of supply for agricultural and industrial purposes pertaining to the entire Thiruchengode Division had to be completed and only then the work of connection to M/s. Omega Granite was taken up for execution and that even on completion of line work, 1 No. 200 KVA Distribution Transformer was not available and a special allotment was obtained and additional load was effected to the Complainant on 31.7.92. It was pleaded that there was no negligence or culpable conduct on the part of the Opposite Parties. Reference was invited to the decision of the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No. 4107 of 1992 filed by the Complainant wherein the High Court did not find any delay or lapse on the part of the Opposite Parties and merely directed them to provide additional load expeditiously. It is further submitted that the Complainant had unauthorisedly utilised the additional load of 24 H.P. which was detected on inspection and the assessment for Rs. 19,900/- was rightly made and demanded.

BY the order dated 5.8.93 under appeal, the State Commission formed the view on appreciation of the facts that there was a delay of nearly 20 months for giving connection after sanctioning of the additional load exhibiting gross deficiency of service and negligence of Opposite Parties and granted a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- besides costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

THE learned Counsel for the Appellants took us through the records and made her oral submissions. Her contention is that in relation to ''the additional load applied for by the Complainant, he is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act and thus delay in sanctioning a connection and commencing supply of electricity does not amount to deficiency at all. Reliance is placed on the decision dated7th December, 1992 of this Commission in R.P. No. 73/92=11 (1993) CPJ 225 (NC) "Additional Chief Engineer and Ors.Ramalingam" to buttress this argument that by making application along with earnest money, he had only become an intending consumer. The Counsel for the Respondent supported the findings Of the State Commission and also pressed his cross objections for enhancement of the quantum. This Commission has repeatedly held that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure providing cross-objections have not been made applicable to the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act and hence the cross-objections are not maintainable. It is pertinent to recall the admitted facts. The Complainant applied for an additional load of 89 H.P. on 275.90 and remitted a sum of Rs. 12,250/- on 16.8.90 as earnest money. After verification, the supply of additional load of 89 H.P. was sanctioned and he deposited a sum of Rs. 6,440/- on 25.4.91 as estimated cost of work. The additional load was effected to the Complainant only on 31.7.92. No evidence was adduced by the Appellants on record either before the State Commission or in this appeal to establish that the materials such as poles, conductors, transformer etc. were not available in store or approval of the P and T Authorities for line crossing was required or if required when it was applied for and when it was given. The State Commission rightly held that the Appellants have not produced the necessary records to establish that they were taking steps without any default and delay in giving the additional load was unavoidable. The Appellants are thus guilty of gross deficiency in service and negligence. In R.P. No. 73/92, only an application with deposit was made but no sanction of the load was accorded. In this case not only the additional load was sanctioned on 1.12.90 but in addition a sum of Rs. 6,440/- was deposited on 25.4.91 as estimated costs of works which was not negligently carried out within a reasonable time. Even in R.P. No. 73/92 an observation was made by this Commission that "prima facie a period of 16 months is too long a period to investigate and sanction power connection and this could have been shortened keeping in view the need for supplying power as early as possible to industries". The High Court of Madras was not called upon to pronounce upon any deficiency in service. It was a petition for a writ of mandamus calling upon the Appellants to perform its statutory duty and the relief of mandamus was granted on 16.4.92 to provide the additional load as agreed during the month of July, 1992. The assessment of the quantum of compensation by the State Commission is fair and reasonable and is upheld. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs before this Commission.