N. PRABAHARAN vs Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation

- THE Complainant Shri N. Prabaharan, Proprietor, Pamii Machine Tools has filed this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1988. He has described his complaint as follows : "Deficiency of service and failure to comply with the terms of contract by the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., (T.I.I.C. Ltd.) Madras, resulting in very heavy financial losses and untold sufferings and hardships."

THE Opposite Party is the Managing Director, the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd., Madras. THE complaint is prolix and is more of argumentative type. Brief facts that are material for the purposes of this Order are follows : THE complainant has established a small scale industry under the name and style of ''Pamii Machine Tools'', in Ponneri (Tamil Nadu) with the financial services of the opposite party. THE oppsoite party had guided the complainant to put his unit, in a backward area i.e., Ponneri (Tamil Nadu) giving him financial incentive -15% capital subsidy - with an assurance that Industrial (3 phase Electricity) power would be provided. THE opposite party has also published booklets show in Ponneri Taluk in Tamil Nadu as an industrially backward area and assured 15% capital subsidy for industries put up in this Taluk and infrastructural facility like electricity. THE complainant put up his unit in 1987 and opposite party gave 15% subsidy and also advanced term loan. However, the complainant has found that 3 phase Electricity is given only for restricted hours totaling 14 hours a day and at unsuitable timings to run an industry. Even during those 14 hours, supply is never given fully (some days it is even as low as 5 hours) and voltage fluctuation is too high. THE complainant has installed sophisticated and expensive imported computerised numerically controlled machine and need continuous, stabilised supply for all the 24 hours of the day (as given in developed areas) to run his high-tech machine and make his unit viable and pay back the loan amount of the opposite party. THE complainant made many representations to the opposite party as well as to the Electricity Board and the State Government to correct the power supply position but to no avail. THE complainant approached the opposite party several times, requesting them to take up the electricity problem with the concerned authorities, and solve the issue but the opposite party has failed to solve the power problem. THE complainant also requested the opposite party to permit him to shift his machinery to Madras City (where power supply is satisfactory). THE opposite party is not permitting him to do so unless he pays back the 15% subsidy with interest THE opposite party has however permitted the complainant to shift the machinery to Madras City or any other place in Tamil Nadu after five years (that is some time in June, 1992). THE complainant further stated that the opposite party was entirely responsible for the non-viability of his unit and mounting of arrears. THE opposite party was also harassing the complainant to pay back the dues of his unit. In fact the opposite party had even once locked the premises of his unit On account of the unsatisfactory supply of power the complainant has assessed his damages at Rs. 73,70,000/-. However, in his complaint he has demanded compensation of Rs. 50 lakhs only from the opposite party. It is not necessary to give all the averments of the opposite party. Suffice it to that according to them they never guided the complainant to establish the unit in a backward area with assurance that the industrial power would be provided better than in a developed area. It was also for the entrepreneur to find out whether facilities were available in the area where the industry was to be established. THEy did not issue any booklet assuring any infrastructural facilities. THE booklet issued only assured that Taluk i.e. Ponneri fell under the backward areas category and eligible for facility of 15% subsidy of capital involved in the industry. No assurance was given to the complainant about the supply of electricity. In fact the complainant himself mentioned in his application for term loan that electricity would be obtained from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. THE complainant filed a rejoinder to the written statement of the opposite party but it is again of argumentative type. He reiterated that when opposite party was publishing booklets assuring infrastructural facilities to the entrepreneurs in the backward areas then it also became their duty to see that the required power was supplied to the industry concerned. After hearing the complainant, who appeared in person and the learned counsel for the opposite party, we are of the opinion that the complainant has not made out any cause of action against the opposite party. THE Commission asked the complainant to point out any document in which the opposite party might have assured to supply him power as is supplied in developed industrial areas in Tamil Nadu. He placed reliance upon a booklet issued by the opposite party in Septemeber, 1990 and which is at Page 53 of the paper book. THE relevant portion reads as follows : To accelerate the industrial development of our state, particularly in backward areas/taluks,s the Government of Tamil Nadu have recently announced many unprecedented concessions like : Area Subsidy, Products Subsidy, S.T. Deferral, S.T. Waiver, Generator Subsidy, Power Tariff Subsidy for SSI Units. This representation of the opposite party does not help the complainant so far as the power is concerned. It only shows that Power Tariff Subsidy alongwith others subsithes were to be granted for small scale industrial units which were intended to be set up in backwards areas/taluks. Moreover, the opposite party in this booklet was only reflecting the incentives which were to be granted by the Tamil Nadu Government through its different agencies. THE opposite party is only a Financial Institution which grants loans to the persons who set up industries and acts as a distributor of subsidy in areas identified as backward by Government. It is not the responsibility for the opposite party to supply power. Power is supplied by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. THE complainant had filed writ Petition No. 826 of 1989, in the Madras High Court against the State of Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board for issing a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents (in that Writ Petition) to provide three phase electric supply continuously for 24 hours a day to his unit. THE High Court passed the following order : - "After hearing Mr. Srivatsa Mani, learned counsel for the petitioner I do not think the prayer can be now granted. This Court takes judicial notice of the fact of paucity of electricity nowadays. As such, it is not proper for this court to interfere with the decision taken by the authorities with regard to the power supply and distribution and hence, it is dismissed. No costs. As such, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. As and when new schemes are formulated to give three phase service connections, I do hope that the respondents will consider the request of the petitioner, if the situation permits." Copy of that Order is at Page 35 of the paperbook. In case the complainant was under the impression that the opposite party was responsible for supplying the power than they would have also been impleaded as respondent in that Writ Petition. In his application for loan the complainant himself had mentioned in column meant for power as follows : "4:16. Furnish the details of requirements of power (in terms of KVA/HP) and arrangements made/to be made Power requirement 24 H.P. Generator is included in the proposal Power will be drawn from TNEB. This shows that the complainant was fully aware of the fact that he was to obtain electricity from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. As there was a paucity of electricity, he included a generator in this proposal. After consideration of the facts of the present case we are of the opinion that the complainant cannot blame the opposite party if his unit is suffering on account of less power or voltage fluctuations. Consequently we dismiss the present complaint with no order as to costs.

Complaint dismissed.