G SUBRAMANIAN Vs. CHAIRMAN TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint under Sec.17 read with Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

(2.) The brief facte of the Complaint are these : The Complainant is running a small scale industry in the Industrial Estate at Ambatrur. He applied to the Electricity Board New Power Supply of 20 HP power and 7.5 KVA. He has also signed in the EB Readiness Register. One S. Mohamkumar alias Mohan working as Assistant Commercial Inspector in the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electricity Board recommended to the Complainant one R. Krishnasamy, Proprietor, of M/s. Opilliappan Shearing Works. The said Krishnasamy compelled the Complainant to sell to him his sick unit and obtained a registered lease deed. It is also alleged by the Complainant that the said Krishnasamy has obtained the signatures of the Complainant in a numberof blanked papers by exercising illegal force, undue influence, coersion and fraud and fabricated all sorts of documents such as consent letter and authorisation letter to the Electricity Board. On the basis of these letters, he has obtained electric connection of 20 H. P. Power and 7.5 KVA sanctioned to the complainant in his name. He has also obtained additional power of 62.5 HP Power using the blank papers signed by the Complainant. The complainant gave a notice to the Electricity Board on 7.10.1990 but inspite of it the connections have been given. All these things have been done with the connivance and at the instigation of the Assistant Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer, and Exective Engineer of Electricity Board. The Complainant has therefore come-forward with this complaint claiming compensation against Electricity Board in the sum of Rs.9,50,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.

(3.) The Opposite Party has filed a detailed counter. It is admitted that the Complainant has applied for electric connection and signed in the Readiness Register. Action was taken as per the rules in force. One Mr. Krishnasamy produced a typed authorisation letter from the Complainant to avail of the electricity supply on behalf of the complainant and the supply was effected on 26.9.1990. The withdrawal of the authorisation given to by Mr. Krishnasamy by the Complainant was received by Electricity Board only on 7.10.1990. Hence no action could be taken as connection has already been given. The Complainant has given a valid letter of consent and the Board has acted upon it. The Opposite Party knows nothing about the dealings between the Complainant and the said R. Krishnasamy. The said Mr. Mohan Kumar mentioned in the complaint is an Assistant Commercial Inspector in the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer and he has no power to deal with any matter independently. Electricity consumption charges have also been accepted from the said Krishnasamy on the production of the white meter card. It is denied that any additional power supply of 62.5 H. P. has been given to said Krishnasamy. It is further averred that the electric supply to 20 HP and 7.5 KVA to the industry was subsequently disconnected on 16.3.1991 as the electricity charges were not paid. There is therefore no deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. This is purely a dispute between the Complainant and Thiru. R. Krishnasamy, who is tanant under the Complainant. This Commission is not the appropriate forum to go into this dispute.