NATARAJA REDDIAR vs SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, T.N.E.B.

THE complainant is the appellant. THE complainant laid the complaint alleging that the electricity service connection he had for his land was disconnected in 1987. But later the Tamil Nadu Government gave instructions to the 1st opposite party to restore the dismantled service connection. Despite several notices and letters, the opposite parties have failed to restore the service connection and that on 10.9.1996, the first opposite party sent a letter to the complainant directing him to approach Chengam Divisional Engineer and that on 23.9.1996 he paid a sum of Rs. 1,269/- and an assurance was given by the Chengam Divisional Engineer and that on 16.12.1996 the first opposite party sent a letter directing the complainant to produce necessary documents certified by Village Administrative Officer (VAO) along with an application for supply of electricity service connection. But on 10.6.1997 the third opposite party issued copies of survey sketch, A-register extract, Chitta, Adangal, but refused to subscribe his signature in the T.N.E.B. application. THE complainant sent letters to the Chief Minister, Collector and other officers and in spite of it, service connection has not been given and hence there is deficiency in service and consequently the present complaint has been laid.

THE version filed by the second opposite party was adopted by the first opposite party. THE first opposite party has issued a memo on the basis of the order of the Tamil Nadu Government stating that the dismantled agricultural service connection can be restored after payment of arrears of consumption charges on or before 30.9.1996. THE complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,269/- towards arrears on 23.9.1996. He was directed to produce relevant documents like Patta, Chitta, Adangal, A-Register extract, ownership certificate along with an application form on or before 15.10.1996. But the complainant failed to do so with the result that the letter was sent on 16.10.1996 directing him to produce the document on or before 16.11.1996. Again he failed to produce it and ultimately he presented the application only on 25.5.1997 wherein he asked for extension of time for the purchase of motor and obtaining revenue records. Time was extended till 29.12.1997. Even then the complainant did not turn up and report his readiness. Instead, he approached the opposite parties on 30.12.1997 requesting extension of time. THE Divisional Engineer recommended for extension of time, but it was turned down by the Superintending Engineer since he had no power to grant extension of time. THErefore, the service connection could not be restored because of the failure on the part of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service. The VAO who has been made as the third opposite party has denied the allegations made by the complainant that he demanded money. When the complainant approached the third opposite party for issue of Chitta, Adangal and survey sketch, the third opposite party asked the complainant to pay the land tax arrears due by the complainant to the Government and the complainant refused to pay. On 29.12.1997 the complainant approached the third opposite party for his signature in the application form and he immediately signed the same and handed over to the complainant.

The Forum below accepted the case of the opposite party and dismissed the complaint.

AGGRIEVED by the same, the complainant has preferred this appeal. The complainant when called did not turn up. But, it appears that he has sent a letter on 29.1.2003 stating that he has become aged and on account of his old age, he is unable to come and appear before this Commission and the matter may be disposed of by this Commission in his absence on merits. The complainant''s electricity service connection for his land was dismantled in 1987 due to Vivasayigal agitation. Therefore, the complainant sought the restoration of the connection. As per the circular of the Electricity Board, he was directed to pay the arrears amounting to Rs. 1,269/- which he did on 23.9.1996. The complainant was asked to submit records namely Patta, Chitta, Adangal, A-Register Extract, ownership certificate along with an application form signed by him for grant of service connection. He was asked to submit it before 15.10.1996. He did not submit it at all. He again and again sought for extension of time. Till 25.12.1997 he did not submit them and did not produce any documents or application but sought further extension of time. Even though the Divisional Engineer recommended for the further extension to be granted, the Superintending Engineer stating that it was not possible under rule rejected the same. Therefore, here is the case where we find the service connection could not be given on account of the default on the part of the complainant. Further the complainant cannot be called consumer in the sense on the date when the complaint was laid he did not have the service connection nor had paid any amounts for obtaining the same. Therefore, when under the rules or regulations, as the case may be, of the Electricity Board to obtain service connection, certain formalities have to be complied with and if those formalities are not complied with, the complainant has to blame himself for the same. Having defaulted to comply with those conditions, he cannot accuse the Electricity Board for deficiency in service. Firstly for the reason that there is no service at all and secondly because the question of deficiency of service does not arise since there is no hiring and consequent liability or duty upon the department to supply the energy. If the complainant had submitted those documents and paid the necessary charges and if in spite of it, service connection is not provided, then perhaps the complainant would have been on a firm ground. That is not the case here. Therefore, we are of the view that there is no merit in this complaint and consequently the lower Forum was justified in dismissing the same.

IN result, this appeal is dismissed, but taking a humanitarian view of the matter, we pass no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.