Mr. Justice A. Raman, President—We do not find any merit in this appeal. The complainant asked for service connection and paid the necessary fees. Though an order was passed by the 3rd opposite party directing the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to effect the service connection, subsequently, it was not done on the ground that there was a case pending and there was an objection raised by the neighbouring owner. Therefore, the complainant laid the complaint alleging deficiency in service.

2. The opposite parties while admitting that it was decided to provide the connection, since a telegram was given by one Ahamed Thambi residing at door No. 36 of that street objecting to the taking of the electric wire over the property which he alleged was the subject matter of a dispute, further steps could not be pursued to give electricity connection and, therefore, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3. The lower Forum rejected the contention and allowed the complaint and also directed the opposite parties to give electricity connection and also pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and a cost of Rs. 500/-.

4. The opposite parties having agreed to grant co