S RAMASAMI Vs. P SHANMUGAVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite party Assistant Executive Engineer (Distribution Town) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Sankarankoil against whom an award has been passed by the District Forum is the appellant. The complainant (respondent herein) applied for electricity service connection for his Diesel Bunk in Kalugumalai Road at Sankarankoil. According to the complainant, the kiosk in the said diesel bunk was permanently fixed and the wiring works were completed. Even though the complainant submitted his application by remitting a sum of Rs.50/- towards registration charges on 7.5.1996, the opposite party failed to give service connection raising some technical objections which are untenable. While so, the opposite party has given electricity service connection to a diesel bunk known as "poornima Enterprises" at Korampallam, Tuticorin which is of the same physical features as that of the complainant's bunk. This act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Because of that the complainant has suffered loss in his business arid also mental agony. On these grounds the complaint was filed.

(2.) The opposite party filed a written version inter alia contending that the complainant has installed one iron box about six feet height which caii be moved to any location. As per the Electricity Board terms and conditions of supply, a permanent building is necessary for providing meter and for effecting supply. But when the site of the complainant was inspected on 25.5.1996 there was no permanent building for effecting supply. Therefore, the complainant's application was rejected. Further, there was no sufficient ground clearance of the service connection. The ground clearance for the service connection should be a minimum of 18 feet, but the existing clearance is less than 8 feet in the complainant's site. In these circumstances, permanent electricity supply to the complainant's diesel bunk cannot be granted in view of the said rules. For these reasons, the complainant's application was returned to him. But the complainant has not complied with the said requirements as per the rules. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It was further contended that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.

(3.) The District Forum, on consideration of pleadings and evidence, came to the conclusion that the complainant is a consumer. It further held that the case of the complainant that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is true. On these findings, it ordered the opposite party to give power supply to the complainant's diesel bunk within a period of one month from the date of the order. It further ordered the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation as pecuniary loss and for mental agony. It also ordered for payment of a sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs of the proceedings.