tamil nadu electricity ombudsman - of 2017 gopalakrishan.pdf · tamil nadu electricity ombudsman...

Download TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN - of 2017 Gopalakrishan.pdf · TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN ...…

Post on 15-Aug-2018

214 views

Category:

Documents

0 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

  • 1

    TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN 19- A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshal Road),

    Egmore, Chennai 600 008. Phone : ++91-044-2841 1376 / 2841 1378/ 2841 1379 Fax : ++91-044-2841 1377

    Email : tnerc@nic.in Web site : www.tnerc.gov.in

    BEFORE THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, CHENNAI

    Present : Thiru. A. Dharmaraj, Electricity Ombudsman

    Appeal Petition No.15 of 2017 Thiru G. Gopalakrishnan S/o Late R. Govinda Pillai, No.15/4, Karnam Street, Selaiyur, Chennai 600 073 5. . . . . . Appellant (Party in person)

    Vs

    The Assistant Engineer / O & M, Selaiyur, Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle/South-II TANGEDCO, No.6A, Kannan Nagar, Avvai Street, Selaiyur, Chennai 600 073. 5. . . . . Respondent (Rep by Thiru. P. Ravi, AE/Selaiyur)

    Date of hearing : 20-4-2017 & 5.7.2017

    Date of order : 7-8-2017

    The petition dated 11.2.2017 filed by Thiru G. Gopalakrishnan, Selaiyur,

    Chennai 73 was registered as Appeal Petition No. 15 of 2017. The above appeal

    petition came up for hearing before the Electricity Ombudsman on 20.4.2017 and

    5.7.2017. Upon perusing the appeal petition, counter affidavit and after hearing

    both sides, the Electricity Ombudsman passes the following order.

  • 2

    ORDER

    1. Prayer of the Appellant :

    The Appellant prayed that the Ombudsman takes a favourable view of the

    case and issue necessary direction to the Appellant as applied for based on the valid

    documents already furnished without insisting on any NOC from Mr. Chellaperumal.

    2. Brief History of the case :

    2.1 The Appellant applied for a 3 phase service connection for his premises at

    No.151/2A, Camp Road, Selaiyur by submitting a copy of the settlement

    deed of the said property.

    2.2 Thiru G. Chellaperumal, the brother of the Appellant has sent objection letter

    to effect service connection stating that a case is pending at District Munsuf

    Court, Tambaram in OS No. 162 of 2015 on the said property.

    2.3 It is also noted that the Appellant has obtained stay order on further

    proceedings in OS No. 162 till the disposal of AS 381 of 2014 pending before

    the Honble High Court of Madras.

    2.4 The Assistant Engineer / Selaiyur informed that the service connection could

    be effected only on receipt of court order.

    2.5 Aggrieved over the above, the Appellant filed a petition before the CGRF of

    Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle / South. The CGRF ordered that

    service connection shall be effected on production of NOC from Thiru G.

    Chellaperumal.

    2.6 Aggrieved over the above order of the CGRF, the Appellant filed the Appeal

    before the Electricity Ombudsman.

  • 3

    3. Order of the Forum :

    The CGRF of Chennai Electricity Distribution Circle has issued its order on

    21.1.2017. The relevant paras of the order is extracted below:-

    Finding and order of the Forum

    On perusing the proof for ownership, the petitioner Thiru G. Gopalakrishna

    has produced a settlement deed of his father in which two sons namely

    Thiru.Chellaperumal & Thiru G. Gopalakrishnan are entitled for the above said

    property.

    The petitioner is advised to enclose the NOC from Thiru Chellaperumal along

    with the application for service connection in his name TANGEDCO is directed to

    effect service if the application is furnished in full shape as mentioned above.

    4. Arguments of the Appellant furnished in the Appeal Petition:

    4.1 This is an appeal against the Order dated 21.1.2017 passed bythe Consumer

    Grievance Redressal Forum, TANGEDCO, Chennai in Petition No. 160/2016

    against the rejection of the Assistant Engineer, O & M TANGEDCO Selaiyur

    in providing a 3 phase service connection for his premises No. 151/2A, Camp

    Road, Selaiyur, Chennai 600 073.

    4.2 In his letter dated 17-6-2016, the Assistant Engineer Selaiyur has stated that

    since there is a dispute between the present Appellant and his brother Mr. G.

    Chellaperumal and that there is a case pending in the Court of the District

    Munsif, Tambaram as well as in the Honble High Court, the electricity

    connection will be given after receipt of the Court Orders.

  • 4

    4.3 The Grievance Redressal Forum also, without perusing the records produced

    by the appellant, and based on the objection raised by the brother of the

    appellant Mr. Chellaperumal, passed an order by advising the Appellant to

    enclose an NOC from Shri Chellaperumal along with his application for the

    service connection in his name, and directed the TANGEDCO to effect

    service if the application is submitted in full shape.

    4.4 The Appellant is in possession of the property in question and he is in full

    enjoyment by virtue of the settlement deed executed between the appellant

    and his brother Mr. Chellaperumal.

    4.5 That his brother Mr. Chellaperumal is also enjoying this joint property under

    this same settlement property and he has been provided 12 service

    connections in same joint property by the Assistant Engineer, Selaiyur and

    that the Assistant Engineer, Selaiyur did not insist any NOC from the

    appellant and the Appellant also did not raise any objectin at that time of

    providing all the above service connections to Mr. Chellaperumal who is none

    other than the own brother of the Appellant.

    4.6 The Appellant is also entitlted to a separate service connection ONLY ONE

    IN NUMBER in the same premises as requested by the Appellant. Hence

    the rejection by the Assistant Engineer, Selaiyur is not al all justified.

    4.7 That the appellant has also submitted a copy of the settlement deed executed

    by Mr. Govinda Pillai, in favour of his two sons i.e., Mr. Chellaperumal and the

    appellant Mr. Gopalakrishnan. Hence it is a valid document to show and

    prove the ownership of the property by the Appellant.

  • 5

    4.8 The Appellant is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property from

    the date of settlement and no further proof is required for the purpose of

    lawful ownership. The appellant has also constructed at small portion in that

    area and the said premises has also been inspected by the TANGEDCO

    Selaiyur. Hence there is absolutely no necessity for the Appellant to obtain

    and produce any NOC from the brother of the appellant Mr. Chellaperumal.

    4.9 The appellant also submits that in another similar case for providing a service

    connection for the residence of the Appellant in Selaiyur, it was first rejected

    by the Assistant Engineer, Selaiyur and on petition to the Consumer

    Grievances Redressal Forum against the decision of the Assistant Engineer,

    Selaiyur, the CGRF TANGEDCO, on perusing all the relevant records and

    after careful consideration of the case, passed orders on 3-9-2016 in petition

    No. 119/2016, directing the Executive Engineer, O & M Tambaram, to act as

    per the existing guidelines on LAWFUL OCCUPANCY and also to report the

    matter to their office. Based on the direction given by the Forum, the

    Assistant Engineer, Selaiyur promptly provided the service connection to the

    appellant.

    4.10 The appellant submits that the reasons for rejection by the Assistant

    Engineer, Selaiyur that a vexatious suit was initiated by Mr. Chellaperumal

    under OS No.162/2015 in the District Munsif Court, Tambaram and the entire

    proceedings have been stayed in favour of the appellant in IA No. 634/2015

    for which a revision petition under CRP No. 148/2016 has been filed by Mr.

    Chellaperumal in the High Court of Madras. Even though the order is in

    favour of the Appellant, both the Assistant Engineer, Selaiyur and CGRF

    TANGEDCO, without applying their mind to go into the details of the case in

  • 6

    their true perspective and merits of the case, acted in an extra constitutional

    manner and rejected the application as a matter of routine. It is, therefore,

    submitted that TANGEDCO is in no way concerned with the case of these

    vexatious suit for taking it as ground for rejection and thereby harassing the

    applicant who is also a lawful and legitimate joint owner of the property and is

    in lawful possession and occupation.

    4.11 The Appellant further submits that the provision in the TANGEDCO

    terms and conditions of supply of electricity and other guidelines also clearly

    permits under Rule 6, Sub clause 3, provision of service even to a tenant who

    is in lawful occupation of the premises, on executing an indemnity bond in

    case where an applicant who is not the owner of the premises is not able to

    get the consent letter or if the owner refuses to give the consent letter and the

    intending consumer produces a proof of his lawful occupancy, whereas in this

    case, the Appellant himself is the joint owner of the property, is in absolute

    possession of the property ever since the settlement, and is also in the lawful

    occupation. An extract of Rule 6.03 is furnished for ready reference.

    5. Arguments of the Respondent furnished in the Counter:

    The Superintending Engineer / CEDC / South II has furnished the counter on

    behalf of the Respondent. The arguments furnished in the counter are f

Recommended

View more >