S VAIDYANATHAN Vs. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The Complainant is the Managing Director of Krishna Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. , which is a small scale industrial unit. The Complainant has been availing of 3 LT supply services bearing Nos.47, 48 and 49. The unit was expanded and an application was made for supply of 400 KVA - HT load on 27.3.89. The Opposite Parties accepted the application and as per their instructions, the Complainant paid Rs.33,025/- as service charges and Rs.64,000/- as security deposit. High Tension service connection No.128 was given to the Complainant on 31.3.90 and the Complainant has been availing of the same. According to the Complainant, the Opposite Parties are collecting charges under Tariff No. VII instead of Tariff No.1 and the Complainant has reserved his right in respect thereof. This is not therefore the subject-matter of this complaint. The Complainant has consumed in April, 1990 -198 KVA, in May, 1990 -215.22 KVA, in June, 1990 - 206.00 KVA and in July, 1990 - 344.00 KVA and has paid charges therefor at Rs.55/- per KVA. The third Opposite Party however, collected charges for excess consumption at Rs.9,460/- for April 1990, Rs.11,354.20 for May 1990, Rs.10,340/- for June 1990 and Rs.25,520/- for July 1990, in all Rs.56,674.20. The collection of this penalty is illegal and has to be refunded. On account of this collection, the Complainant has been put to loss which is estimated at Rs.1,41,685.50. He has also claimed Rs.50,000.30 as compensation for mental agony.

(3.) The second Opposite Party has filed a counter on his behalf and on behalf of the first and third Opposite Parties. It is pointed out that the Complainant was having 3 LT services bearing Nos.47, 48 and 49. He wanted conversion into HT services in March, 1989. His application for a contract load of 400 KVA was allowed subject to bifurcation of the existing 11 KV Aria-mangalam feeder fed off Tiruverumber 110/11 KV S. S. and requested the Complainant to pay the service connection charges and deposit amount. This has been duly intimated to the Complainant in the letter dated 24.6.89. The Complainant has accepted this condition and remitted the security deposit and service connection charges. In the sanctioned demand he was permitted to use only 112 KVA as acknowledged in the test report. But the Complainant availed of 198 KVA in April, 1990, 215-22 KVA in May, 1990, 206-52 KVA in June, 1990 and 344 KVA in July, 1990. These consumption were in excess of the permitted demand of 112 KVA. The test report signed by the Complainant on 30.7.90 would also show these facts. The Complainant was permitted to use 400 KVA only from 30.7.90. As he had consumed more than the permitted demand, from April to July, 1990, compensation charges as per contract were levied and collected in accordance with the rules. There is no deficiency.