Back
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADRAS
Honble Thiru Justice S.A. Kader,
President; Thiru R.N. Manickam,
Member; Dr. Tmt. Ramani Mathuranayagam, Member
G. SUBRAMANIAN—Complainant
versus
THE CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD—Opposite Party
O.P. No. 550 of 1992—Decided on 30.4.1993
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant : In person.
For the Opposite Party :Mr. Kanakasabai, Advocate.
.
The Consumer Commission is not the appropriate forum to resolve disputes involving allegations of coercion, fraud, and undue influence.
Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - ELECTRICITY CONNECTION - SECTION 17 AND 12 - SUMMARY OF ACTS AND SECTIONS REFERENCED AND DISCUSSED BY THE COURT: The court discussed the provisions of Section 17 and 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, which deal with the rights of consumers and the remedies available to them in case of deficiency in service. The court also referred to the Electricity Act, which governs the supply of electricity and the rights and obligations of electricity boards.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, who ran a small-scale industry, applied for a new power supply of 20 HP power and 7.5 KVA from the Electricity Board. He signed the EB Readiness Register and was recommended to a third party, Krishnasamy, by an Assistant Commercial Inspector of the Electricity Board. Krishnasamy allegedly compelled the complainant to sell his sick unit to him and obtained a registered lease deed. Krishnasamy also allegedly obtained the complainant's signatures on blank papers and fabricated documents, including a consent letter and authorization letter to the Electricity Board, to obtain the electric connection sanctioned to the complainant in his name. The complainant gave a notice to the Electricity Board on 7.10.1990, but the connections were already given.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant had given a valid letter of consent to Krishnasamy to avail of the electricity supply on his behalf and that the Electricity Board had acted upon it. The court also found that the complainant had not impleaded Krishnasamy as a party in the complaint, which was a necessary requirement since the case was based on the coercion, fraud, and undue influence said to have been practiced on him by Krishnasamy.
Issues: 1. Whether the Electricity Board was deficient in service in giving electricity connection to Krishnasamy based on the authorization letter given by the complainant? 2. Whether the Consumer Commission was the appropriate forum to resolve the dispute between the complainant and Krishnasamy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the Electricity Board in giving electricity connection to Krishnasamy based on the authorization letter given by the complainant. The court also held that the Consumer Commission was not the appropriate forum to resolve the dispute between the complainant and Krishnasamy, which involved allegations of coercion, fraud, and undue influence.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed without costs.
Mr. Justice S.A. Kader, President—This is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
2. The brief facte of the Complaint are these : The Complainant is running a small scale industry in the Industrial Estate at Ambatrur. He applied to the Electricity Board New Power Supply of 20 HP power and 7.5 KVA. He has also signed in the EB Readiness Register. One S. Mohamkumar alias Mohan working as Assistant Commercial Inspector in the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electricity Board recommended to the Complainant one R. Krishnasamy, Proprietor, of M/s. Opilliappan Shearing Works. The said Krishnasamy compelled the Complainant to sell to him his sick unit and obtained a registered lease deed. It is also alleged by the Complainant that the said Krishnasamy has obtained the signatures of the Complainant in a numberof blanked papers by exercising illegal force, undue influence, coersion and fraud and fabricated all sorts of documents such as consent letter and authorisation letter to the Electricity Board. On the basis of these letters, he has obtained electric connection of 20 H.P.Power and 7.5 KVA sanctioned to the complainant in his name. He has also obtained additional power of 62.5 HP Power using the blank papers signed by the Complainant. The complainant gave a notice to the Electricity Board on 7.10.1990 but inspite of it the connections have been given. All these things have been done with the connivance and at the instigation of the Assistant Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer, and Exective Engineer of Electricity Board. The Complainant has therefore come-forward with this complaint claiming compensation against Electricity Board in the sum of Rs. 9,50,000/- and costs of Rs. 10,000/-.
3. The Opposite Party has filed a detailed counter. It is admitted that the Complainant has applied for electric connection and signed in the Readiness Register. Action was taken as per the rules in force. One Mr. Krishnasamy produced a typed authorisation letter from the Complainant to avail of the electricity supply on behalf of the complainant and the supply was effected on 26.9.1990. The withdrawal of the authorisation given to by Mr. Krishnasamy by the Complainant was received by Electricity Board only on 7.10.1990. Hence no action could be taken as connection has already been given. The Complainant has given a valid letter of consent and the Board has acted upon it. The Opposite Party knows nothing about the dealings between the Complainant and the said R. Krishnasamy. The said Mr. Mohan Kumar mentioned in the complaint is an Assistant Commercial Inspector in the Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer and he has no power to deal with any matter independently. Electricity consumption charges have also been accepted from the said Krishnasamy on the production of the white meter card. It is denied that any additional power supply of 62.5 H.P. has been given to said Krishnasamy. It is further averred that the electric supply to 20 HP and 7.5 KVA to the industry was subsequently disconnected on 16.3.1991 as the electricity charges were not paid. There is therefore no deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. This is purely a dispute between the Complainant and Thiru. R. Krishnasamy, who is tanant under the Complainant. This Commission is not the appropriate forum to go into this dispute.
4. Exhibits A-1 to A-21 are marked. The Complainant who appeared in person and the Counsel for the Opposite Party were heard.
5. The Complainant has applied for power connection of 20 H.P. power and 7.5 KVA and has also signed the EB Readiness Register. He has then given a authorisation letter to R. Krishnaswamy for taking this connection and accordingly the Electricity Board has given connection to the said R. Krishnasamy on 26.9.1990. The case of the Complainant is that the said R. Krishnasamy has compelled him to sell his unit to him and to execute a registered lease deed i
