TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD vs ATLAS GRANITE

THE opposite parties in COP No. 16/2001 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Namakkal, are the appellants herein. The case of the complainant was as follows: They had applied for 110 HP power service for their industry vide application No. 9/94-95 dated 10. 5. 1994. They were asked to submit readiness certificate and remit the EMD charges by letter dated 3. 7. 1994. The complainant paid Rs. 33,600 towards EMD on 30. 8. 1994 and entered readiness on 14. 11. 1994. Then as per the further demand made by the opposite parties, they paid Rs. 26,160 on 18. 2. 1995. Thereafter the opposite party asked the complainant to report their readiness to avail the supply. The opposite parties informed the complainant that they had not reported their readiness to avail the supply and, therefore, the complainant was to pay Rs. 40 per H. P. towards monthly minimum charges and fresh security deposit again in order to get service connection. The complainant sent a reply and objection to the notice dated 16. 8. 1995. The opposite party still demanded Rs. 43,800 as pre-condition to give service connection. When the complainant had paid all the amounts payable, it was not proper on the part of the opposite parties to make further demands. Thus there was deficiency in service. The complaint, therefore, came to be filed

THE opposite parties resisted the complaint stating as follows: The opposite party Nos. 3 and 4 inspected the premises of the complainant to verify the readiness of the installation of the machinery, motor wiring work, etc. , on 2. 8. 1995. During that inspection it was found that the building work was in progress, machinery was not erected and the motor was not installed. Wiring work was also in progress. Based on the inspection report the 4th opposite party issued a second 90-days'' notice under Clause XXVII of the Circular Instructions letter dated 11. 5. 1990 for the BPM FB No. 481 dated 21. 10. 1988 and issued demand for payment of the monthly minimum of Rs. 40 per H. P. and fresh EMD of Rs. 33,600 as per the Board Rules, inasmuch as the EMD paid earlier was forfeited as per the Board Rules since the complainant had not availed the service connection within 90 days period i. e. , within 31. 7. 1995. It was the duty of the complainant to test the electrical apparatus and equipment and furnish the same before the Board within the stipulated time prescribed. As per notice dated 17. 10. 1995, the complainant had paid the amount of Rs. 43,800 on 30. 10. 1995. The complainant neither produced nor raised any objection for the said amount. The complainant did not ask the opposite party to refund the said amount. If the demand had been felt to be illegal, the complainant could have made a complaint to the 1st and the 2nd opposite parties. The complainant had not issued any legal notice to the opposite parties to give an opportunity to express their reply. Before the District Forum, on the side of the complainant Exs. A1 to A17 were marked while on the side of the opposite parties Exs. B-1 to B-14 were marked.

The District Forum found that there was no delay on the part of the opposite parties to effect the service connection and the delay was only on the part of the complainant to avail the service connection. But, however, the District Forum gave a wrong interpretation to Clause XXVII of the Circular Instructions letter and consequently directed the opposite parties to refund the deposit received a second time in a sum of Rs. 33,600 within six weeks from the date of the order with 12% interest. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that there was total misinterpretation of the Circular by the District Forum, that the opposite parties were justified in forfeiting the amount and making a fresh demand for payment by the complainant as a condition for getting the service connection. The relevant rule runs as follows: "if he fails to avail supply within the first 3 months period, the Earnest Money Deposit should be forfeited. However, another three months'' notice may be given to him and if he still fails to avail supply, the application may be cancelled. If he comes forward to avail supply, he is liable to pay the monthly minimum charges from the date of expiry of first 90 days'' notice to him regarding the availability of supply till the date of availing service. He shall also pay security deposit afresh. " a proper reading of the said clause would make it clear that in case an applicant failed to avail the service within 90 days, then, the applicant should be given a further three months'' notice and if he still failed to avail the supply, the application may be cancelled and even after that if he comes forward to avail the supply, he is liable to pay the monthly minimum charges from the date of expiry of the first 90 days'' notice to him regarding the availability of supply till the date of availing service. He shall also pay security deposit afresh. The complainant had expressed his willingness to get the service connection during the second 90-days notice and in such an evntuality the District Forum, in our view rightly found that it was not proper on the part of the opposite parties to have made a demand for a fresh deposit of Rs. 33,600. In the present case, the first 90 days'' period expired on 31. 7. 1995. The technical experts of the opposite parties examined the capacitors and found them to be inadequate or insufficient. This was done on 2. 8. 1995. The very next day, the complainant gave the proper capacitor. There was no document produced by the opposite parties to show that the complainant had not made all arrangements for getting the electricity connection. The collection of deposit a second time, in our view, was not at all justified. The complainant paid Rs. 43,800 on 30. 10. 1995. It was clearly a second payment. The opposite parties were not justified in forfeiting such a large sum as Rs. 33,600 which had already been paid by the complainant. No doubt, during the first 90 days it was the mistake of the complainant in not getting the connection. In view of that the monthly minimum charges collected from them was perfectly justified. But, then, collection of the additional deposit could not be justified at all.

IN view of the discussion above, the order of the District Forum is found to be correct and no interference is called for. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.