The court established that the cancellation and forfeiture of deposit by the Electricity Board were not in accordance with the rules and regulations, leading to deficiency in service, and awarded compensation to the complainant.

Thiru Justice M.S. Janarthanam, President—Jurisdictional facts as culled out from the materials placed on record may in brevity be referred to in rather a bid to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action.

2. One Mr. A.G. Swaminathan (com-plainant) was an erstwhile Post Master, retired from service on 31.7.1992. He belongs to downtrodden section of the community, namely, Adi Dravida. After his retirement, he has started a commercial venture in the name and style of Devi Welding Works at No. 2/351, Mambakkam Road, Medavakkam, Chennai. He commenced the said venture on 30.8.1993. He submitted two applications on 6.1.1993 to the Assistant Executive Engineer, Medavakkam, Chennai - 601 302 (opposite party) for getting service connections to his industrial unit. Of the two applications, one is for getting service connection for 1 H.P. power for running the other machineries. The other application is for one Kilo Watt Ampere (K.V.A.) equivalent to 2 H.P. for welding purposes. The purpose of submitting two applications for two independent service connections rather appears to be this : If one service connection is obtained for welding purposes and running other machineries, it appears the entire electricity consumed by the industrial unit will be subjected to a surcharge at a rate of 20% though the rate to be charged is under Tariff IV for industrial purposes. To put it otherwise, if two separate service connections are obtained, the surcharge at the rate of 20% will be there for electricity consumed for welding purposes alone.

3. Initially, he was asked to pay Earnest Money Deposit (E.M.D.) of Rs. 600/- and Development Charges (D.C.) of Rs. 1,000/- totalling to Rs. 1,600/- for each of the two service connections, i.e., he was asked to remit a sum of Rs. 3,200/-. He, as a matter of fact, on 22.4.1993 paid the Earnest Money Deposit and Development charges for the two applications totaling to Rs. 3,200/-.

4. Later on, he was asked to pay service connection charges (S.C.) quantified in a sum of Rs. 100/- and Caution Deposit (C.D.) quantified in a sum of Rs. 200/-, totalling to Rs. 300/- for each of the service connections, all totalling to Rs. 600/- for two service connection. He, on 13.7.1993 paid the service connections and caution deposit charges all totalling to Rs. 600/- for the two service connections. On 29.12.1993, the Department issues a communication to the complainant to the following effect :

“Sir,

Sub : Elecy - New Industrial Service Application - reg.

Ref : I. No. 23, 24/92-93.

With reference to the above, the Board is ready to effect the Industrial Service Connection to your premises. Your premises is found Door locked continuously. You are requested to avail the service connection within 7 days on receipt of this letter failing which your application will be recommended for cancellation.”

5. Again the Department, on 10.1.1994 issued another communication to the complainant to the following effect :

“Sir,

Sub : Elecy - New Industrial Service application - reg.

Ref : (1) I-23, I-24/92-93.

(2) This Office Lr. dt. D. 525/93 dt. 29.12.93.

In continuation to the above ref (2), you have not availed the New INDL Service Connection within the specified period. Hence your industrial application is treated as cancelled please.”

6. On 23.2.1996, the complainant sent a letter to the Superintending Engineer, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-78 explaining the predicament situation in which he was placed because of the non-giving of the electricity connection and being put to the necessity of approaching the competent Consumer Forum for getting relief.

7. Thereafter, he also sent a letter to the Chief Minister’s Cell on 4.3.1997 more or less on the lines of the communication sent to the Superintending Engineer, K.K. Nagar, Chennai-78. Thereafter, he caused a Lawyer’s notice dated 21.3.1997 to be sent to the opposite party claiming compensation quantified in a specimen amount for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposi