ASSISTANT ENGINEER TNEB Vs. CHINNATHAL POLLITHOTTAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order of the lower Forum cannot be maintained. The complainant applied to the opposite party for service connection to her property situated at Survey No.1002/2. But the other co-owners of the property in Survey No.1002/2 objected to the line being carried over their land or for the pole being installed in their land. Therefore, the Electricity Board was not in a position to comply with the request of the complainant. While so, the complainant gave another letter stating that the service connection may be effected through the land of one Palanisamy. The complainant has not produced any consent letter from the said Palanisamy. The complainant has also not chosen to deposit the amount viz. , the likely cost of the connection if effected through the land of the said Palanisamy. It is not in dispute that relating to the property, a suit in O. S. No.993/1996 before the District Munsif Court, Palani objecting to the effecting of service connection through the said land and an interim order has been passed in I. A. No.933/96. Therefore, in such circumstances, the opposite party was not in a position to grant the request of the complainant in the initial stage. The alternative route suggested by the consumer, according to the opposite party, would involve an expenditure of not less than Rs.10,000 and according to the terms and conditions of the Electricity Board, the expenses have to be paid by the applicant in advance. The complainant though requested for the connection to be given through the land of the said Palanisamy did not choose to deposit the estimated cost of the poles and drawing of wires. The complainant further failed to furnish No Objection Certifcate from the said Palanisamy. Therefore, in such circumstances, it is clear that the non-supply of electric supply was not on account of any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, but owing to the circumstances pointed out above. Hence, there cannot arise any deficiency in service. Therefore, the order passed by the lower Forum directing the payment of Rs.1,000 as compensation for deficiency in service and further directing the grant of service connection through the land of the said Palanisamy on payment of Rs.6,280 by the complainant, cannot be accepted at all.

(2.) Hence, in the result, this appeal is allowed. The order passed by the lower Forum is set aside. The complaint will stand dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs. However, it is open to the opposite party to consider the granting of service connection to the complainant if the complainant submits an application with the consent from Palanisamy along with necessary deposit of the estimated cost of effecting service. Appeal allowed.