tamil nadu electricity ombudsman - of 2017 gopalakrishan.pdf · tamil nadu electricity ombudsman...
Post on 15-Aug-2018
Embed Size (px)
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 : email@example.com 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)
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.
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.
2.6 Aggrieved over the above order of the CGRF, the Appellant filed the Appeal
before the Electricity Ombudsman.
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
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.
4.3 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.
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
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
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