NAMAKKAL PONVIZHA NAGAR RESIDENTS OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs. ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER (O &M) TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD RURAL SOUTH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant is the appellant.

(2.) In the complainants association, there are 423 houses, for which there are many wells, for the supply of water, having service connection, and one of the service connection No.SC 675. The Varugampatti Panchayat, had handed over the Ponvizha Nagar Housing Board Houses, to the complainants association, for maintenance, including the payment of electricity bill, for the service connection, and accordingly they are paying the bills also, for the consumption of electricity. In the borewell, where SC 675 is given, during summer, there will not be water. Because of the non-availability of the water, as well as for maintenance work, the motor in SC675 was not at all operated, and therefore it would not have consumed energy. However the opposite parties, based upon audit, requested the president of the Panchayat, to pay a sum of Rs.46,397/-, as if the Panchayat is liable to pay for SC675, for the period 12/2001 to 8/2002, illegally and unjustifiably. Repeated request to waive and reconsider this amount, ended in vain, which should be construed as negligent act, as well as deficiency in service, which had caused mental agony also, for which the complainant is entitled to a sum of RS.60000/-. Thus a consumer complaint came to be filed, to set aside the demand of Rs.46,397/- in addition to other reliefs.

(3.) The opposite parties, admitting the service connection, justifying their demand, giving calculation, how the amount of Rs.46,397.03/- was reached, opposed the complaint, interalia contending, that the service connection in question, are not standing in the name of the complainant, whereas they are standing in the name of the President, Varugampatti Panchayat, and the contract is only between the Panchayat President, and the opposite parties, and this being the position, the complainant is not a consumer, not entitled to maintain the case, and that the issuance of receipt, in the name of the complainant, will not vest with them, to be a consumer, and against the person, who had issued receipts so, auction is being taken, and that since the demand was proper, based upon audit report, and calculation, there is no question of negligent act or deficiency in service, thereby prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.