M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite parties are the appellants.
(2.) The respondent/complainant gave an application, to the first opposite party on 29.04.98, seeking electricity service connection, paying a sum of Rs.1,000/-. After several months, the first opposite party demanded a sum of Rs.400/-, which was also paid on 27.11.98. Even thereafter, despite notice on 07.11.2002, the opposite parties failed to give service connection, insisting that the complainant should produce a Certificate, declaring that the pathway is common, which was also complied with. Even thereafter, when the complainant was ready and willing to pay the necessary fees, the opposite parties failed to give service, which should be construed as deficiency in service, and on that basis, the complainant is entitled to get a direction for giving electricity service connection, in addition, for a compensation of Rs.15,000/-.
(3.) The opposite parties admitting the application given by the complainant, denying the payment said to have been made namely Rs.1,000/-, opposed the claim, contending that when they were making preparation for giving service connection, the President of Moovendar Nagar Muthuaramman Temple presented an application, informing that a civil suit is pending and therefore, the opposite parties should not take the line, thorough the common pathway, which is the reason for the delay, which cannot be described as negligent act or deficiency in service and complaint is liable to be dismissed since vexatious in nature.;