IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI PRESIDENT BEFORE : Hon’ble Thiru Justice R. SUBBIAH F.A.NO.16/2025 (Against order in CC.NO.121/2024 on the file of the DCDRC, Vellore)

DATED THIS THE 18^th DAY OF MARCH 2025 Assistant Engineer Tamilnadu Electricity Generation And Distribution Corporation Ltd., M/s. K. Kamalakannan (TANGEDCO), Town-2, Counsel for Ranipet- 632 401 Appellant /Opposite party Vs.

A. Camalarajan Managing Director ALFA SOLES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Represented by:

N.S. Nallaperumal General Manager ALFA SOLES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED M/s. S. Makesh No.35B 8L F, By pass salai Counsel for Shankar Nagar, Ranipet – 632 401 Respondent/ Complainant The Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite party praying for certain direction. The District Commission has allowed the complaint. Against the said exparte order, this appeal is preferred by the opposite party praying to set aside the order of the District Commission dt.26.9.2024 in CC. No.121/2024.

This petition is coming before me for hearing finally today. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel appearing for bothsides, and upon 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. The opposite party before the District Commission is the appellant herein.

2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that the complainant is having commercial electricity connection for his factory. Whileso, on 2.11.2021 he found that the electricity meter was not working. Therefore, based on the request of the complainant, a new meter was fixed by the opposite party on 1.12.2021. Subsequently, for the month of November 2021, the opposite party charged the electricity consumption charges based on the previous month’s average bill amount. Since the complainant was under the idea of closing the factory at that time, the consumption of electricity energy would have been lesser than previous months. Inspite of the representation of the complainant, the opposite party had not come forward to reduce the bill amount. Since the complainant had not paid the bill due to the heavy fixation of bill amount, the electricity connection was disconnected. Therefore, alleging negligence on the part of the opposite party, the complainant filed a complaint praying for a direction to the opposite party to cancel the bill amount, and to pay a compensation of Rs.10 lakhs towards mental agony.

3. The Appellant/ opposite party, inspite of service of notice, had failed to appear before the District Commission, hence an exparte order was passed in favour of the Respondent/ complainant, by holding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and had directed the opposite party to cancel the bill amount, and to fix the bill amount based on the Rule 11 of Tamilnadu electricity board regulation, and to restore the disconnected electricity connection, and to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-. Aggrieved over the order impugned, the opposite party has filed the present appeal, praying to set aside the order passed, and remand back the matter for fresh consideration.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party had submitted before this commission that the order of the District Commission is contrary to the provisions of Electricity Act 2003. The non-appearance before the District Commission, is neither willful nor wanton. The opposite party has good case to defend. If an opportunity is provided, the opposite party will have a fair chance of succeeding the case. Thus, prayed for an opportunity to contest the case on merit.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for bothsides.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/ opposite party had submitted before this commission, that the opportunity for filing version, which was denied