Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/351/2017

Dr. V.Murugan, - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. L.J.Krishnamurthy

14 Dec 2022

ORDER

IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

 

BEFORE :       Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH                      PRESIDENT

Thiru R  VENKATESAPERUMAL                           MEMBER

                        

F.A.NO.351/2017

(Against order in CC.NO.81/2015 on the file of the DCDRC, Chengalpattu)

 

      DATED THIS THE 14^th DAY OF DECEBER 2022       

 

Dr. V.Murugan

No.4, Avvai Street, Durga Nagar,                         M/s. L.J.Krishnamurthy

Tambaram Sanitorium                                               Counsel for

Chennai – 600 047                                           Appellant / Complainant

 

                                                         Vs.

 

1.       The Chairman, T.N.E.B

          Mount Road, Chennai – 600 002

 

2.       The Executive Engineer (O & M)

          T.N.E.B. Porur

          Chennai 600 116

 

3.       The Assistant Executive Engineer

          T.N.E.B, Thirumudivakkam

          Chennai – 600 044

 

4.       The Assistant Engineer,                                 M/s. K. Kamalakannan

          T.N.E.B, Thirumudivakkam                                     Counsel for

          Chennai – 600 044                                 Respondents / Opposite parties

 

          The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain direction. The District Commission had allowed the complaint as against the 3^rd & 4^th opposite parties, and had dismissed the complaint as against the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred by the complainant praying set aside the order of the District Commission dt.20.9.2017 in CC.No.81/2015.

 

          This appeal coming before us for hearing finally today, upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing on bothside and on perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Commission, this commission made the following order in the open court:

 

 

 

ORDER

 

JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH,  PRESIDENT  (Open court)

 

1.       This appeal has been filed by the appellant/ complainant as against the order dt.20.9.2017 in CC.No.81/2015 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chengalpattu in dismissing the complaint against the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, while allowing against the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties herein.    

 

 2.      The brief facts which are necessary to decide the appeal is as follows:

          The complainant belongs to an agriculturist family, and is the owner of the cultivable lands of 3.82 acres under survey Nos.572 & 573 of Palanthandalam Village, Sriperumbudur Taluk, Kanchipuram District.  He is cultivating mainly paddy crop in that land.  A pumpset is attached with a well for cultivation purposes situated in the above said lands, which is being used for the past 45 years.  While so on 26.11.2014 he found that the three phase electricity supply wires connecting between the posts located in the land of Mr.Kanniappa Naicker and the post leading to the complainant’s pumpset was found to be cut off and stolen by some anti-social elements.  Therefore he gave a complaint on 26.11.2014 orally to the A.E the 4^th opposite party.  Since no action had been taken on the oral complaint, he had sent a written complaint on 27.11.2014.  The 4^th opposite party is the officer incharge of the electricity board of Pazhanthandalam Village.  Pursuant to the complaint, on 29.11.2014 the Line-Inspector had visited the complainant’s land, on the instruction of the 4^th opposite party,    asked the  complainant to   produce the document for holding agricultural lands and accordingly the complainant submitted the documentary evidence on 16.12.2014.  On the very same day, the complainant also informed the 3^rd opposite party about the theft of the three phase electrical wires.  The 3^rd opposite party had also assured that the electricity supply would be restored within a week, but it was not restored.  Hence, a complaint was lodged before the Inspector of Police, Kundrathur, by the 4^th opposite party on 2.2.2015, after a period of 3 months.  But again there was no electricity connection.  Since the electricity supply was not restored, the complainant suffered heavy damage to the extent of Rs.4.20,000/-  since there is a shortage of water during samba cultivation. Hence the complainant had come forward with the present complaint praying to restore the electricity supply to the complainant’s pumpset and to pay a sum of Rs.4,20,000/- towards the loss of crops alongwith compensation of Rs.50000/- and cost of Rs.10000/-.

           

3.       The said complaint was resisted by the opposite party, by filing their version as follows:

            The complaint was lodged by the complainant dt.16.12.2014, alongwith the documents at the office of the opposite party on 26.12.2014.  Based on the complaint, an inspection was done by the Asst. Engineer, Thirumudivkkam, and it was found that there were no agricultural activities for few years, which might have encouraged the anti-social elements to steal the electricity property.  After field inspection, a written complaint dt.6.1.2015 was submitted to the Police Inspector – Kundrathur, but the same was not accepted by the concerned police station.  Hence the complaint was returned without registering.   It is the responsibility of the consumer to safeguard the EB materials, which passes through his land.  But he has not taken any care to safeguard the same.   The opposite party is not in anyway responsible for the theft of electric materials. 

 

4.       In order to prove the complaint, proof affidavits were filed on either side, alongwith documents, which were marked as Ex.A1 to A12 on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to B10 on the side of the opposite party.  

 

5.       The District Commission, after analyzing the entire evidence had directed the opposite parties 3 & 4 to reconnect the service connection provided the complainant is ready with the meter board, main switch, fuse carrier and other accessories, and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- towards compensation alongwith cost of Rs.3000/-.   The complaint against the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties had been dismissed.  Being not satisfied with the order impugned, the complainant filed this appeal, praying for enhancement of compensation.

 

6.       We have heard the submissions on eitherside, perused the materials placed for consideration alongwith order impugned.

 

7.       The main grievance of the complainant as submitted is that there was a loss to the extent of Rs.4,20,000/- due to the non-supply of electricity since electric materials had been stolen by antisocial elements.  But the District Commission failed to award any amount towards the loss of the crop.  Moreover, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.50000/- towards compensation, but the District Commission had awarded only a paltry sum of Rs.10000/-.  The opposite party deliberately failed to restore the service connection, thereby caused mental agony to the complainant.  Considering the amount of mental agony undergone by the complainant, the District Commission ought to have awarded the compensation as prayed for by the complainant.  Thus praying for enhancement of compensation, the present appeal is filed.

 

8.       Countering the same, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that for theft of the electrical materials, the opposite party cannot be held responsible.  It is the responsibility of the consumer to safeguard the EB materials, which passes through his land.  But he has not taken any care to safeguard the same.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part. Thus prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

 

9.       Having considered the submissions made, it is established that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not taking immediate action to reconnect the electricity connection.  In fact there is no proper explanation from the opposite party with regard to the delay caused in effecting the reconnection of lines between the poles with new wires immediately after the receipt of information about the theft of wires by some anti-social element.  Therefore, there is no doubt that the complainant would have suffered mental agony apart from financial loss.  Considering the negligence, we feel that the award of Rs.10000/-granted  by the District Commission  towards the compensations seems to be on the lower side.  At the same time, we also feel that the complainant had not established the actual loss, by way of documentary evidence for claiming Rs.50000/- towards compensation.  In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that awarding a sum of Rs.25000/- towards compensation would meet the ends of justice.  Accordingly by enhancing the award of compensation from Rs.10000/- to Rs.25000/-, and by confirming the rest of the order, the appeal is hereby ordered.

 

 

10.     In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, by modifying the order of the District Commission, Chengalpattu, in CC.No.81/2015 dt.20.9.2017, the compensation awarded @ Rs.10000/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.25000/-, and the rest of the order is hereby confirmed.  There is no order as to cost in this appeal.

 

 

 

    R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                             R. SUBBIAH

               MEMBER                                                                      PRESIDENT