ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER Vs. RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -In appeal No. 144 of 1991 the State Commission of Tamil Nadu, Madras had passed an order on the 10th of January, 1991 against the revision-petitioner here dismissing his appeal against the order of the District Forum of Ramanathapuram in O.P. No. 23 of 1991. It confirmed the order of the District Forum which directed that the Opposite Party-Appellant should provide power supply to the respondent-complainant for all the 24 hours every day for the petitioner's unit, that the Opposite Party-Appellant should extend additional load/power supply for the additional machinery installed in the petitioner's unit and that he should pay Rs. 40,000/- as compensation to the petitioner.

(2.) The appellant has challenged the order of the State Commission and the District Forum. It is denied that there has been any deficiency of service on its part towards the respondent-complainant and that the District Forum and the State Commission have no power under the Consumer Protection Act to direct the Appellant-Opposite Party to" supply electricity for 24 hours every day to the complainants units and to extend additional/power supply for the additional machinery installed in the petitioner's unit. In its rejoinder it has pointed out that the respondent-complainant applied for power connection for his ice factory at Muthukalathur on 18.1.1990 and the same was sanctioned 16 months later on 17.5.1991. The application of 18.1.1990 for power connection was accompanied by a deposit of Rs. 700/- as earnest money. A sum of Rs. 750/- was remitted by the respondent-complainant on 12.2.1991 as service connection charges. It has explained that it has taken so long time to sanction the power connection because it had to be investigated whether the supply would cause voltage fluctuation in the supply in the area concerned and consequent inconvenience to the consumers of that area keeping in view that the ice factory was located in a residential area. On investigation it was found that the existing LT line was passing near the site of the appellant-opposite party. It was found necessary to provide a distribution transformer to feed the load of 6.5 HP of the respondent-complainant, thereby to prevent voltage fluctuation. It was also discovered in December, 1990 that the grant of power connection to the respondent-complainant involved crossing of a Telegraph line and prior permission of the Post & Telegraph Department was necessary before allowing the power connection and this permission was obtained by or before 17th May, 1991, when the power connection was actually given.

(3.) The appellant has also raised a more fundamental issue that the respondent-complainant is not a consumer. By making an application along with earnest money deposit on 18-11-1990, he had only become an intending consumer, an applicant for service. The hiring of service of supply of power by the appellant could only arise after the full amount had been deposited or the connection had been given. There is considerable merit in the objection taken by the appellant on the question of jurisdiction viz. that the respondent-complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. On this ground the Revision Petition is allowed and orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside.