Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman

TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN

No. 17, No. 19A Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (TIDCO Complex),

Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

Tel: 044 -28411376/378/379 Fax : 044- 28411377

BEFORE THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN

Second day of December Two Thousand Nine

Present: R. Balasubramanian, Electricity Ombudsman

Petition No.34 of 2009

Tmt A.Maria Sebathiammal

W/o P.Arulanantham

79, A.M.A.Nagar

Nijam Colony Third Street

Pudukottai 622 001 ……………. Petitioner

The Chairperson,

Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum,

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

Pudukottai Electricity Distribution Circle

Pudukottai 622 001 ……………….. Respondent

Thiru A.Madhanagopalan

s/o Ethirajulu Naidu

No 15/7 Thiruvalluvar Salai

Alangudi

Pudukottai Dt………………… Impleading petitioner

The above petition arises out of the order dated 30-9-2009 of the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Pudukottai Distribution Circle, which rejected the petitioner’s plea for disconnection of a domestic service connection availed by another person, who claims legal occupation of the premises for which the petitioner has a clear title of ownership and in spite of the objection raised by her prior to the effecting of service.

This petition coming up for final orders before the Tamil Nadu Electricity Ombudsman, upon perusing the petition and the counter affidavit filed in support thereof and upon perusing the relevant records pertaining to the case and having stood over for the consideration before the Ombudsman till this day, the Ombudsman passes the following order.

ORDER

Facts of the case:

The petitioner claims that she is the absolute owner of the house at Door No 15/7, Thiruvalluvar Salai at Alangudi and the ownership has been established at the level of High Court. In spite of the petitioner’s objection, the TNEB have provided a service connection at this place to Thiru Madhanagopal taking into consideration a certificate issued by Tahsildar Alangudi, ration card , gas connection etc., to prove that he is a legal occupant of the premises and that the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code permits such a facility to a legal occupant, even if the owner does not agree to give no objection certificate. The petitioner claims that the residence certificate produced by Thiru Madhanagopal to avail the service connection is false and TNEB have given this supply by violating all the norms with hidden intentions and the service connection should therefore be immediately disconnected.. In this context, the said legal occupant in whose name the service connection was given by TNEB impleaded himself and appeared during the hearing with his advocate and provided all the proof for his legal occupancy and confirmed that even today he only lives at that place.

Hearing held by the Ombudsman

In order to enable theparties to present their case orally, a hearing was held by the Ombudsman in this matter on 24-11-2009. The petitioner’s husband Thiru P.Arulananthamwas present and the respondent Board was represented by the concerned Executive Engineer/ Arnathangi, Thiru Vijayakumar and the Assistant Executive Engineer / O&M/ Town, Alangudi , Thiru Dhakshinamurthy. The service connection holder Thiru Madanagopal,who impleaded was also present alongwith his advocate Thiru A.S.Jeyabaskar.

Issues before the Ombudsman:

The following are the two issues to be decided:

(i)Whether TNEB followed the terms and conditions of supply to give a new service connection to Thiru Madhanagopal :

(ii)If it were so, what is the relief to be ordered for the petitioner Tmt Maria Sebathiammal

Findings for the first issue :

The respondent Board during the hearing, reiterated the following three points:

a)The petitioner has elaborated many things in his petition to stress the point that she is the owner of the said property. TNEB does not question the ownership of the petitioner for the house to which the service connection has been given.

b)TNEB have not violated any regulation or rules or the provisions of the Act. The terms and conditions of supply specified in the Distribution Code permits a legal occupant to avail service connection for the place he is occupying. In line with the specified procedure in the Distribution Code, they had obtained an indemnity bond from the legal occupant and then only gave the service.

c)The legal occupancy of Thiru Madhana Gopal at the said place has been established by documentary proof through a certificate of residence from the Tahsildar, ration card , gas connection card and voter ID . This is over and above the site inspection by the TNEB officers.

The relevant portions of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Distribution Code with respect to the contention of the respondent Board in (b) above are reproduced below:

------

(4). An intending consumer who is not the owner of the premises shall produce a consent letter in Form 5 of Annexure III to this code from the owner of the premises for availing the supply. If the owner is not available or refuses to give consent letter, the intending consumer shall produce proof of his/her being in lawful occupation of the premises and also execute an indemnity bond in Form 6 of the Annexure III to this code indemnifying the licensee against any loss on account of disputes arising out off effecting service connection to the occupant and acceptance to pay security deposit twice the normal rate.

------

In this context, the petitioner raised the point that , in as much as they had raised objection to give the service, well in time, along with the clear cut proof of ownership, their concurrence should have been insisted before giving the service and TNEB colluded with Thiru Madhanagopal and gave the service on the basis of false records furnished by him. The respondent Assistant Executive Engineer was questioned as to whether he received such communication from the petitioner and what was the action taken by him on that letter. It was replied that , on receipt of the said letter , in which the petitioner claimed that she only is residing in that house, the place was inspected and it was Thiru Madhanagopal who was living at that place. and not Tmt Maria Sebathiammal It was therefore concluded that the service connection could be effected to the legal occupant and the letter from the petitioner ignored.

In order to repudiate the allegation of the petitioner upon the integrity of the concerned engineers , the respondent officials produced a copy of the report of the Vigilance wing on a complaint filed on the same issue by the petitioner , which gives a satisfactory reputation rating for them.

On going through the past history of events connected with this property, the petitioner seems to be trying to solve their civil dispute through the electricity service connection. All the records submitted for the legal occupant proof cannot be termed as forged ones and are more than enough for the purposeof giving service connection.. After all, the intention of the provisions in the Distribution Code, as referred above is to ensure that an occupant of a house should not be deprived of electricity simply because the owner is not willing to permit him to enjoy a basic necessity and that the refusal for a new connection or discretionary disconnection of a service should not be used as a tool to evict a tenant . Such dispute resolution should be through civil procedures in court of law.

In the light of the findings as above, it is my considered opinion that TNEB did not err in giving the domestic service to Thiru Madhanagopal at No 15/7 Thiruvalluvar Salai, Alangudi. The only mistake I could point out is that, TNEB should have replied the petitioner in writing ,at the time of his objection, about the provisions in the Code to give supply to the legal occupant and the fact that the occupancy was also verified with an inspection.

Findings on the second issue

Having arrived at the conclusion that the service connection given by TNEB for Thiru Madhanagopal is in order and as per the regulations, the question is whether any relief could be thought of to the petitioner who claims that she is the owner of the said house and the service has to be disconnected ?. I am afraid that the service cannot be disconnected unless the owner of the service connection ( Thiru Madhanagopal) opts for it or payment default is committed Further if the petitioner who claims ownership becomes the occupant of the house and in turn the enjoyer of the impugned service connection, the he automatically inherits the right to surrender the service and get a new service in her name or obtain a name transfer with the concurrence of the previous legal occupant viz., Madhanagopal. Hence the second issue is also not in favour of the petitioner

Conclusion :

Based on the findings as above the appeal petition is dismissed No costs

R. Balasubramanian

Electricity Ombudsman

Copy to