G. Subramanian vs Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

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/-. 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.

Exhibits A-1 to A-21 are marked. The Complainant who appeared in person and the Counsel for the Opposite Party were heard.

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 in his favour. THE said Krishnasamy is also alleged to have obtained the Complainant''s signatures in a number of blank papers by force, undue influence, coersion and fraud and fabricated several documents including consent letter and authorisation letters to the Electricity Board for giving electric connection applied for by the Complainant to the said R. Krishnasamy. THE grievance of the Complainant is that he did not execute any Lease Deed in favour of Krishnasamy and did not give any consent letter to Krishnasamy and gave notice to the Electricity Board on 7.10.1990 but inspite of his notice the Electricity Board has given connection to Krishnasamy. THE defence of the Opposite Party is that on the basis of authorisation letter given by the Complainant, the connection was given to Krishnasamy as early as 26.9.1990 while the withdrawal of authorisation letter cane to the Board only on 7.10.1990. As electricity connection had already been given to Krishnasamy, nothing could be done in the matter. It is denied that the Assistant Engineer or the officials of the Electricity Board had anything to do in the dispute between the Complainant and the said Krishnasamy. THE Opposite Party also denies that any additional power supply has been given to Krishnasamy. THE facts stated above show that on the basis of consent and authorisation letter given by the Complainant, the Electricity Board has given electric connection to Krishnasamy, in whose favour the Complainant has executed a Deed Lease and to whom he has transferred his sick unit. We are unable therefore to find any deficiency of service or negligence on the part of the Opposite Party in giving electricity connection to the said Krishnasamy by virtue of letter of authorisation given by the Complainant. This is essentially a dispute between the Complainant and the said Krishnasamy in whose favour the Complainant has executed a Deed of Lease. The allegation of the Complainant is that the said Krishnasamy by using force coersion, undue influence and fraud has obtained from him a Lease Deed, the sale of the unit and signatures in blank papers. These are matters which have to be decided in a Criminal Court or Civil Court of proper jurisdiction. This Commission is not the forum where these questions between the Complainant and Krishnaswamy can be agitated. It may also be pointed out that the case of the Complainant is based upon the coersion, fraud and undue influence said to have been practiced on him by the said R. Krishnasamy. But the said Krishnasamy has not been impleaded as party in this complaint. This complaint must fail on that ground also.

IN the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed but without costs. Complaint dismissed.