THIRU A.K.ANNAMALAI,PRESIDING MEMBER (J) - (1.) THE opposite party is the appellant. The complainant had availed service connection for her house by paying necessary deposit on 3.10.2008 and in the month of September, 2009 without any intimation or notice to the complainant the service was disconnected by the opposite party on the grounds that the passing of wire on the vacant site of the neighbour land was objected and supply would be made from the 40 feet proposed street in due course and thereby a consumer complaint came to be filed claiming restoration of service connection and damages for Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of education to the children and Rs. 50,000 as deficiency of service and Rs. 35,000 as compensation for -mental agony and Rs. 10,000 as costs. The District Forum on the basis of both sides materials allowed the complaint directing the opposite party to restore the service connection immediately within 40 days without collecting any further charges and failing to do so they have to give service connection also with Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 3000 as costs.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the impugned order, the appellant/opposite party contended in this appeal that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint without considering the details of the appellant. Since the adjacent land owner sent an objection letter dated 31.8.2009 to remove the service connection above his land and based on the same the complainant was addressed a letter on 31.8.2009 to decide the service route and the complainant sent a reply stating that she is going to demolish the old house to construct new house in the same place hence the service connection already given can be disconnected permanently as per letter dated 14.9.2009. Hence, the service connection was disconnected and as per Sections 6 and 7 of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Supply Code and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
(3.) WHEN the appeal taken up for hearing the appellant even though sufficient chances was given not appeared to argue the case and thereby after hearing the respondent side arguments the order being passed on merits. It is the admitted case of both sides that the complainant has availed the service connection for her house on necessary payments on 3.10.2008 which was subsequently disconnected by the appellant during the month of September, 2009 alleging since there was an objection by the neighbour as the connecting wire goes on the vacant site of the neighbourer for which they relied upon a letter dated 31.8.2009 in their grounds of appeal but the same was not produced before the District Forum. Whereas on perusal of Ex. A6 letter stated that the complainant had given a Notary -Public affidavit stating that if any objection is raised that the complainant is undertaking to withdraw the service connection as per that she was required to withdraw the service connection and nowhere it is stated who had objectioned and what was the neighbour objection under letter dated 31.8.2009 was not at all produced likewise. It is stated that the complainant had given a letter dated 14.9.2009 stating that she would going to demolish the existing house and to reconstruct a fresh new house and thereby no objection to remove the permanent disconnection of the existing service connection, and this letter also was not produced by the opposite party and the complainant had produced Ex. A3 payment receipt bearing the same dated 14.9.2009. Even under the Right Information Act details given under Ex. A4 to one M. Karnan regarding the details for disconnecting the service connection it is stated in reply No. 4 since the service charges was not paid for the connection on 23.9.2009 as per board rules the disconnection was effected in which nowhere it is stated that because of objection raised by the neighbour, the disconnection was made. From this detail it appears that the opposite party had with some motivation disconnected the service connection given to the complainant house and thereby after considering all the relevant materials the District Forum came to proper conclusion and allowed the complaint with which finding we are in agreement and no need to interfere with the finding. As far as the award is concerned the District Forum directed to restore the service connection within 40 days without collecting any further fees failing which to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 3000 as costs with which finding also, we find no error or infirmity and thereby we are of the view the entire order of the District Forum could be confirmed by dismissing the appeal accordingly. In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Forum Then passed in C.C. No. 30/2012, dated 24.2.2014. The opposite party/appellant is directed to comply the District Forum order within 40 days from the date of receipt of this order. No order as to costs in this appeal.;