F.A. No. 113 of 2014. Case: Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Vs Murugeswari. Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Order:

Thiru A.K. Annamalai, Presiding Member (J)

1. The opposite party is the appellant. The complainant had availed service connection for her house by paying necessary deposit on 3.10.2008 and in the month of September, 2009 without any intimation or notice to the complainant the service was disconnected by the opposite party on the grounds that the passing of wire on the vacant site of the neighbour land was objected and supply would be made from the 40 feet proposed street in due course and thereby a consumer complaint came to be filed claiming restoration of service connection and damages for Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of education to the children and Rs. 50,000 as deficiency of service and Rs. 35,000 as compensation for-mental agony and Rs. 10,000 as costs.

2. The District Forum on the basis of both sides materials allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to restore the service connection immediately within 40 days without collecting any further charges and failing to do so they have to give service connection also with Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 3000 as costs.

3. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant/opposite party contended in this appeal that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint without considering the details of the appellant. Since the adjacent land owner sent an objection letter dated 31.8.2009 to remove the service connection above his land and based on the same the complainant was addressed a letter on 31.8.2009 to decide the service route and the complainant sent a reply stating that she is going to demolish the old house to construct new house in the same place hence the service connection already given can be disconnected permanently as per letter dated 14.9.2009. Hence, the service connection was disconnected and as per Sections 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code and there is no deficiency in service on their part.

4. When the appeal taken up for hearing the appellant even though sufficient chances was given not appeared to argue the case and thereby after hearing the respondent side arguments the order being passed on merits.

5. It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant has availed the service connection for her house on necessary payments on 3.10.2008 which was subsequently disconnected by the appellant during the month of September, 2009 alleging since there was an objection by the neighbour as the connecting wire goes on the vacant site of the neighbourer for which they...