JUNIOR ENGINEER, T.N.E.B. vs S.KULANDHAIRAJAN

THE appeal is directed against the order dated 9.7.1997 in O.P. No. 118/96 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Srivilliputhur.

THE appellants are the opposite parties, officials of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Virudhunagar, while the respondent is the complainant. THE complainant, it is said, is the owner of the house located at Lakshmi Nagar, Virudhunagar-Madurai Road, Virudhunagar, having its Door No. 6/158. He applied for domestic service connection for supply of electrical energy to the house under Tariff - I. He, it is said, paid a deposit of Rs. 500/- besides payment of Rs. 1,000/- towards development charges. It appears, the said house was rented out by the complainant to one Kamarajar District Agricultural Co-operative Society. The domestic service under Tariff-I was sought to be converted into commercial service under Tariff-IX. Under Tariff-IX service connection, Rs. 750/- has to be paid by way of a deposit and Rs. 500/- per KW has to be paid by way of developmental charges. It appears the complainant availed of 7 KW power. Therefore, he ought to have paid developmental charges under the said Tariff 500 x 7 amounting to Rs. 3,500/-.

On conversion of the Tariff from I to IX, the opposite parties, it appears, collected the difference in the deposit amount namely, Rs. 450/-. The opposite parties, by way of inadvertence, did not appear to have collected the difference in developmental charges namely, Rs. 3,500 - 1,000 = Rs. 2,500/-. However, the Tariff from I to IX had been changed.

THE Kamarajar District Agricultural Co-operative Society, it appears, subsequently, vacated the house on 5.12.1994. THE complainant, it appears gave an application on 17.2.1996 for change of Tariff from IX to I. At that time, it appears the opposite parties found out the mistake committed by the Department in not levying and collecting the difference of developmental charges between domestic and Commercial tariff amounting to Rs. 2,500/-. Consequently, the opposite parties issued a notice to the complainant requesting him to pay the difference in amount of developmental charges to the extent of Rs. 2,500/- besides the payment of inspection charges quantified in a sum of Rs. 60/-, all totalling to Rs. 2,560/- for the change of Tariff again from IX to I. THE complainant did not at all pay the demand so made by the opposite parties. THE complainant, it appears, did not also collect the revised test report from the Department for the change of Tariff from IX to I. The opposite parties did not at all change the Tariff from IX to I of the complainant''s service connection as a consequence of non-payment of the amount as demanded by them towards difference in developmental charges and inspection charges all total amounting to Rs. 2,560/-. Consequently, the complainant has to pay current consumption charges at the commercial rate of Rs. 2.75 instead of 65 paise (current consumption charges for domestic purpose) per unit.

THE complainant alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, knocked at the doors of the Forum below for reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. The opposite parties in pith and substance contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part. Since the complainant did not remit the difference in developmental charges and other incidental charges for change of Tariff, no action was taken by the Department. The complaint, as such, is liable to be dismissed. The Forum below after taking into consideration the relevant materials placed on record, directed the opposite parties : (1) to change the service connection of the complainant SC 658 from Tariff IX to I within two months from the date of its order; (2) to waive Rs. 2,500/- required to be paid by the complainant towards difference in developmental charges; and (3) to pay to the complainant the excess electrical current consumption charges quantified in a sum of Rs. 1,200/-; (4) to pay Rs. 450/- the amount of deposit charges already collected; and (5) to pay Rs. 500/- to the complainant by way of costs. The Forum below issued a further direction that all these amounts were required to be paid within a period of two months from the date of its order or otherwise the said amounts would carry interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of realisation.

AGGRIEVED by the order as above the opposite parties resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of their choice learned Counsel Mr. V. Dhanasekaran.

ON service of process, the respondent/complainant did not choose to enter appearance by engaging a learned Counsel of his choice and it appears he wanted to project his case in person. When this matter came up for hearing today, the respondent/complainant is not present in Court to project his hues of views. The fact that the respondent/complainant is not present in Court does not mean that we cannot dispose of this appeal on merits, of course, on perusal of the materials placed on record and after hearing learned Counsel appearing for the appellant.

Arguments of learned Counsel Mr. K. Kumaran, representing learned Counsel Mr. V. Dhanasekaran, appearing for the appellants were heard. Materials placed on record were perused.

EVEN at the outset, we may point out that the appeal deserves to be allowed. The Forum below, it appears, did not appear to have sifted and scanned the factual matrix in the light of the relevant rules and regulations relatable to the tariff rates as respects the service connection to be given by the Electricity Board. We have perused the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Notifications relatable to the levy of tariff charges. On such perusal, we are able to perceive that in giving service connection for domestic purpose which is said to be under Tariff-I, the Department has to collect charges towards deposit quantified in a sum of Rs. 300/- and developmental charges in a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. For giving service connection for commercial purpose, which is said to be under Tariff-IX, the Department has to collect deposit charges in a sum of Rs. 750/- and developmental charges quantified in a sum of Rs. 500/- per KW power. It is an admitted fact that the complainant initially got his service connection 658 to his house under tariff-I domestic purpose. It is also an admitted fact that Rs. 300/- alone had been collected from him by way of deposit for giving such service connection to his house. Yet another fact about which there is no dispute is that the complainant rented out his house to the Kamarajar District Agricultural Co-operative Society and consequently the tariff from domestic i.e., Tariff-I was changed into commercial i.e., tariff-IX. There is also no controversy that the said agricultural co-operative society vacated the house of the complainant on 5.12.1994 and thereafter the complainant gave an application for change of Tariff from IX to I. It is at this time, it was found out that the Department, by way of a sheer inadvertence, failed to collect the difference in development charges of Rs. 2,500/- since the complainant had availed of the 7 KW power while letting out the house to the said Society, although they had collected the difference in deposit charges in a sum of Rs. 450/-. Consequently, the Department appeared to have demanded the complainant for the difference in amount towards developmental charges of Rs. 2,500/- besides payment of inspection quantified in a sum of Rs. 60/- all totalling to Rs. 2,560/-. The complainant did not at all pay the said amount. The Department did not at all effect the change of Tariff from IX to I, since the complainant has not paid the charges demanded by them. There is nothing wrong on the part of opposite parties, Electricity Board in not changing the tariff when especially the complainant had not remitted the amount legitimately due to the opposite parties, Electricity Board. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that the opposite parties committed any sort of deficiency on their part. The Forum below, did not at all appreciate these aspects of the matter and perhaps this was the reason for the Forum below to have passed an erroneous order. The order so passed in such circumstances, cannot at all be allowed to stand.

IN fine, the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint itself is dismissed. We however make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal allowed.