- (1.) 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/ -. The opposite parties having agreed to grant connection and pursuant to which the complainant has paid the necessary charges, the opposite party was not justified in not proceeding further. Of course, we find that one Ahamed Thambi has sent telegram and also filed a suit. But the taking of wires overhead cannot be objected to by any person. Moreover, the suit relates to only a common lane measuring about 63 ft. east -west and 5 ft. north -south and situated to the south of door Nos.35 and 36 and to the west to door No.37 and the relief in that suit asked for is to prevent the Executive Officer, Kayalpattinam Panchayat from effecting any pipe connections over or through the 'b' Schedule property. In that suit, the complainant of course has been made a party but the Electricity Board is not made a party. Further, as pointed out already, it relates to the taking of the pipeline. Moreover, from the diagram produced by the Electricity Board, we find that the proposal by the Electricity Board was to take wires from a nearby post. There are two lamp posts shown, one near door No.39 and another near door No.40. The house for which the service connection prayed for was for door No.38. The suit was relating to door Nos.35 and 36 and the passage measuring 5 ft.63 ft. lying to the sought of door Nos.35 and 36. This has nothing to do with the property for which the service connection asked for. Therefore, in such circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal. However, the lower Forum was not justified in awarding a compensation of Rs.5,000/ -. When a telegram has been received and when it is brought to the notice that a case has been laid, naturally, the department wanted to play it safe and did not want to rush in with the connection. Therefore, they cannot be found fault with in not proceeding to give connection. Of course, they ought to have obtained the necessary legal opinion which they have failed to do. But the fact that they received a telegram from one of the parties under Ex. B6 is not in dispute. Therefore, we do not think that there is any justification to order a compensation of Rs.5,000/ -. Therefore, in such circumstances, that part of the order and the further direction to pay a cost of Rs.500/ - have to be set aside.;