- (1.) SINCE the complainant and the opposite parties are the same in both the cases and as the Lower Forum has disposed of the complaints by a common order, the two appeals are disposed of by a common order.
(2.) THE complaint relates to Registration Nos. 5105 and 5106 which in turn are the numbers of applications submitted by the complainant for service connection for irrigational purposes. The opposite party namely the appellants herein cancelled the registration. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed these two complaints which were accepted by the Lower Forum which directed the opposite party to restore the registration number to their original status and give service connection within a month. It further ordered the opposite parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000.
(3.) IN our opinion, the order of the Lower Forum cannot be maintained at all, the reason being that what was asked for by the complainant will not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant had simply applied for service connection. The applications were registered in Nos. 5105 and 5106. He has not paid any fees. He has not hired the services of the opposite party. Therefore, it was only mere application. The mere filing of application cannot provide a cause of action under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act. No contract of service has sprung up between the parties. The application filed is if at all a request or at best an offer by the complainant to avail the services of the opposite party. It is in a nascent stage. It had not acquired any contractual or legal implications. At best, it is a petition containing a prayer for supply of energy. Therefore, on this ground, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Secondly, we find that the complainant has clearly stated that he is a permanent resident of Cuddalore doing business at 47, Bharathi Road, Cuddalore. The opposite parties have sent 90 days notice to the complainant by Registered post acknowledgement due addressed to the above premises namely 47, Bharathi Road, Cuddalore. The registered letter was returned with postal endorsement as door locked on 14.10.2004, absent on 16.10.1994 and 17.10.1994. It is also seen that there is an endorsement dated 18.10.1994 stating intimation delivered. Therefore, it is clear that there was a proper notice given by the opposite party. For reasons best known to the complainant, he did not choose to accept the letter, apparently because he was not ready with the money and has not made the necessary preparation. He was not willing to accept it and wanted to bid time. As per Ex. B6 we find that application for extension of time beyond one year from the date of expiry of 90 days cannot be entertained. The complainant has been communicated properly by the opposite party by sending a registered letter. But the complainant has avoided the receipt of the letter which was returned on 29.10.1994. The complainant has filed to contact the opposite parties. He has further failed to inform the opposite parties about his readiness with motor and pump set and capacitor. Nor has he written to the opposite parties stating that he would be ready with all that by or before the particular date. Therefore, in view of the act that there was no response to the notice, the opposite parties naturally cancelled the priority of those applications. The Lower Forum erred in holding that the opposite party should have taken steps to serve it through lineman. The opposite parties do not have any separate wing for causing service of notice. Linemen are not intended for service of notices. They have other duties to perform. The staff of the Electricity Board cannot be made as messengers. The accepted and known procedure namely sending notice by Regd. Post Acknowledgement Due has been followed by the opposite parties. Therefore, it is not incumbent upon the opposite party to send notice through their staff. Even if it is sent by the staff, there is no guarantee that it would be accepted by the complainant. The question of service by affixture also does not arise because it is not a statutory notice. If it is a summon or notice sent by a Court or a statutory authority and the notice requires the performance of certain action and contains a clause that failure to perform would be met with penal consequences, there is necessity to serve it by affixture if other modes fail. Further, such a service by affixture is also not contemplated under the provision of the Electricity Act or the Board s Circular or Manual. Therefore, it is clear that the Lower Forum has not adverted its mind to the facts of this case and there is non -application of mind. It is really strange that the complainant should allege that the opposite party and postal authorities have colluded. It is not known that on what basis such an averment is made by the complainant. This only shows how desperate the complainant is to find some cause to escape from the consequences of his action in refusing to receive the notice. Therefore, in such circumstances, we have no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the Lower Forum deserves to be set aside.;