ASSISTANT ENGINEER Vs. K KUTHALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party-Assistant Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sivakasi, against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum is the appellant.

(2.) The complainant is a tenant doing business in the premises No.33-A at North Street, Sivakasi. The owner of the premises was one M. G. Kathiresan. The case of the complainant appears to be is that for the periods 11/94,1/95, 3/95 and 5/95 he has paid a current consumption charge of Rs.280/- @ minimum consumption charge of Rs.70/- per period. The opposite party had taken meter reading on 24.7.1995 and had noted that for the 5 periods there had been a consumption of 95 units. On this basis they have calculated the current consumption charge and after deducting the amount of Rs.280/- paid by the complainant, he had been directed to pay the balance amount of Rs.294/-. But the meter reading of 95 units is not correct and excessive and the complainant had not consumed that much of electricity. For all the 4 periods of 11/94, 1/95, 3/95 and 5/95, the opposite party never came for meter reading and they have falsely stated that the door was locked. Since the complainant had not paid the amount as directed by the opposite party, the electricity service connection has been disconnected by the opposite party. This amounts to deficiency in service on their part. On these allegations the complaint has been filed for directing the opposite party to give reconnection and also to pay compensation.

(3.) The opposite party contended that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and, therefore, the District Forum cannot enquire into the complaint. When the opposite party went for meter reading, the door was locked and, therefore, the meter reading could not be done. When the meter reading was done on 24.7.1995, it showed 95 units for the 5 periods. Therefore the complainant was directed to pay a sum of Rs.294/- being the balance amount of the current consumption charges after deducting a sum of Rs.280/- paid by the complainant. Since he had not paid the consumption charges, the service connection was disconnected on 18.8.1995. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and, therefore, the complaint was liable to be dismissed.