E.J. Bellie, President

1. The complainant is a Partnership Firm known as M/s. B.J.P. Starch. The 1st opposite party is Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are the Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer. The complainant is a lessee for the property described in the Lease Deed for a period of 99 years from 23.9.1987. The complainant planned to construct a Starch and Sago Industry in that property. The complainant's case is that apart from its own contribution, the complainant also borrowed a loan of Rs. 6,42,000/- from the Indian Bank for the proposed unit. On 1.11.1987 the complainant sent an application to the 2nd opposite party for 3 industrial electricity power connections one for a load of 66.5 HP and the second for 7.5 HP and the third for 1 HP the first one being for the purpose of running the industry and the 2nd one for pumping the water from the well and the third one for lighting the factory. The 3rd opposite party by its letter dated 1.2.1988 directed the complainant to register "readiness" to receive the supply within 180 days from the date of receipt of the letter. The complainant registered readiness with the 3rd opposite party on 24.9.1988. The 2nd opposite party on the wrong advice of the 3rd opposite party cancelled the application on 7.1.1989 stating that the complainant had not completed the necessary works and therefore, he was not ready for supply of the electricity. The complainant by his letter dated 14.1.1989 requested the 2nd opposite party to grant him another 45 days for readiness. As per the direction of the 2nd opposite party the complainant once again applied for service connection on 21.2.1989. This application was registered on 8.3.1989 as registration numbers 52 & 53 regarding 66.5 HP and 7.5 HP negligently leaving out the 1 HP for lighting the premises. The present application is only regarding the application for single phase lighting load power connection application dated 21.2.1989. Even though the lighting load application was submitted on 21.2.1989 upto 25.7.1994 the opposite parties negligently delayed the power connection. This delay had occurred for no reason and the power supply was given only on 25.7.1994. On account of this the Industrial Unit has become sick and the complainants have sustained heavy loss. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant has claimed various sums on different heads all totalling to Rs. 46,30,511/-. But the complainant had restricted the same to Rs. 10,00,511/-.

2. The opposite parties filed a written version contending that me complainant had submitted only one application requesting a load of 50 HP, 15 HP, and 10 HP totalling to 75 HP. The opposite parties agreed to sanction only one service connection since the complainant has applied for 75 HP totally in a single application. The complainant had not completed the construction work and failed to instal the machineries before entering readiness and this was reported by the Junior Engineer in his letter dated 30.12.1988. It is not correct to say that the 2nd opposite party cancelled the application by wrongly interpreting "readiness". The cancellation of the application was done as per the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rules and Regulations. The 2nd application given by the complainant was registered under two numbers one for 66.5 HP and another for 7.5 HP. No registration for the 3rd connection was made since the load required was less than 15% of the sanctioned power load. It is further contended that the service connection No. 81 of Kamukkappalayam stood in the name of Thiru S. Ramasamy Gounder and as per Lease Deed dated 23.9.1987 entered into between the said Ramasamy Gounder and the complainant B.J.P. Starch the 50% of rights in agricultural S.C. No. 81 could be used by the complainant for manufacturing of bricks. Thus there was violation of condition in respect of the service connection No. 81 and therefore, a provisional notice was issued on 9.12.1988 but me owner of S.C. No. 81 filed a Writ Petition in the High Court. The High Court ordered the petitioner therein to pay one fourth of the amount claimed within four weeks and directed the opposite party herein to make the enquiry. The enquiry was accordingly made and the service owner cleared the arrears on 5.9.1990 and thereupon the complainant was required to pay the E.M.D. amount by letter dated 24.10.1990. Thus there was no delay on the part of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. In obedience of the order of the High Court in W.P. No. 3116/90 dated 1.4.1991 the opposite party prepared an estimate and obtained sanction from the Competent Authority. A demand was made to the complainant to pay a sum of Rs. 15,200/- towards the cost of the materials to be erected within the complainant's lands. But instead of paying that amount the complainant rushed to the Court. On 31.3.1993 the complainant wrote a letter that the concerned Survey Number had been sub-divided and on the basis of this the amount of Rs. 15,200/- was reduced of Rs. 7,700/- and the complainant was intimated to remit this reduced amount and the complainant was informed that on payment of this amount of Rs. 7,700/- the electricity would be given within two months. In the meanwhile heavy cyclone occurred on 4/5.12.1993 in Attur taluk. Due to this cyclone a number of electric poles had broken and fell down and the distribution transformer was completely damaged and it fell down on the ground. It consumed lot of time to rectify the same. Due to this reason the contempt application filed against the opposite party was dismissed. After completing all the works, the complainant was asked to remit a sum of Rs. 18,700/- towards the current consumption charges and Rs. 6,800/- towards development charges, Rs. 350/- towards labour charges and Rs. 500/- towards meter caution deposit, and also Rs. 200/- towards meter connection deposit and a service connection charge of Rs. 3,200/- all totalling to Rs. 31,450/- and after adjusting the E.M.D. amount of Rs.9,550/- which was already paid the net amount payable by the complainant was Rs. 21,900/-. This claim was made legally as per the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Rules and Regulations. As against this amount the complainant had sent only Rs. 1,800/- and the 3rd opposite party refused to receive it. Subsequently of course the amount demanded was reduced to Rs. 9,600/- but that was done as per the Circular Memo dated 16.4.1994 which was subsequently communicated on 27.5.1994. The complainant paid the revised demand on 16.6.1994 and the service connection was given on 25.7.1994. Thus there was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties and therefore, they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.

3. The question that arises for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the 3 opposite parties as alleged and if so what reliefs can be granted to the complainant.

4. It is not in dispute that the complainant has asked for 3 service connections for 66.5 HP, 7.5 HP and 1 HP. The complainant's grievance is that there has been delay in giving the three service connections for 66.5 HP, 7.5 HP and 1 HP and this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. According to the opposite parties the complainant had sent only one application for 3 service connections on 1.11.1987. A perusal of the complaint does not clearly show as to whether one application was sent or more applications were sent according to the complainant. In one place it appears according to the complainant only one application was sent in another place 3 applications were sent. But Ex. A1 is the cancellation letter dated 7.1.1989. A reading of this would clearly show that the application was only one and that was cancelled. When service connections are required in respect of any factory and it was required on the same day normally only one application would be made and not 3 applications. For all these reasons, the case of the opposite parties that there was only one application was sent appears to be true. Now, even though there was only one application for 3 service connections, the complainant had chosen to file 3 complaint namely O.P. Nos. 85, 86 and 87/95. The present complaint relates to the application for single phase lighting load connection. As contended by the opposite parties, it appears that when one complaint can be filed in respect of all the service connections asked for, with some ulterior motive 3 complaints have been filed. Even in this complaint O.P. No. 85/95 claiming that the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 46,30,511/- it has been restricted to Rs. 10,00,511/-. From this it is obvious that only with a view to get compensation from this Commission without going to the National Commission 3 complaints have been filed instead of one according to the complainant they sent the application for service connection on 1.11.1987 and this application was cancelled by the opposite party by wrongly interpreting the word "readiness" on 7.1.1989. But the complainant firm themselves have sent a letter dated 14.1.1989 requesting for 45 days more to finish the installation of electrical fittings. Thus the complainant themselves have admitted unreadiness.

It is nextly stated that even though the second application was sent on 8.3.1989 itself, only after one and half years the Earnest Money Deposit ("E.M.D.") demand was made for 66.5 HP and 7.5 HP and this amounts to deficiency in service. But admittedly, as contended by the opposite parties, service connection No. 81 of Kamukkappalayam was in the name of S. Ramasamy, the father of one of the partners of the complainant firm and that service connection was for agricultural purposes. The pleadings and the evidence disclose that there was an agreement between the said S. Ramasamy and the complainants under which the complainants made use of the energy from that service connection for commercial purpose, and there was arrears of charges in respect of that service connection, and the opposite party stated that unless that arrears is cleared, the service connection cannot be given to the complainant. In this connection, there has been a Writ Petition in the High Court filed by the said Ramasamy Gounder and in that petition the said Ramasamy was ordered to pay one fourth of the amount claimed by the opposite parties within 4 weeks and the opposite parties were directed to make the enquiry. Enquiry was made and the service connection owner cleared the arrears on 5.9.1990 and thereupon the complainants were required to pay me Earnest Money Deposit amount by letter dated 24.10.1990. Therefore, there is no merit in the plea of the complainant that there was inordinate delay in making demand for payment of the Earnest Money Deposit after the applications. Then a demand was made to the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.15,200/- towards the cost of the materials to be erected within the complainant's lands. But instead of paying that amount the complainant rushed to the Court filing O.S. No. 163/93 before the District Munsif, Attur for mandatory injunction directing the opposite parties to give service connection. On 31.3.1993 the complainant wrote a letter to the opposite parties that the concerned Survey Number had been sub-divided, and on the basis of this letter the amount of Rs. 15,200/- was reduced of Rs. 7,700/-, and the complainant was intimated to remit this amount and the complainant was informed that on payment of this amount of Rs. 7,700/- the electricity would given within 2 months. While so, according to the opposite parties, heavy cyclone occurred on 4/5.12.1993 in Attur Taluk. Due to this cyclone a number of electric poles have broken and fell down and the distribution tranformer was completely damaged and it fell down on the ground, and it consumed lot of time of rectify the same. However, the complainant had filed a contempt application against the opposite parties but that application has been admittedly dismissed. This shows that the said contention of the opposite party is probable and must be true. It is not in dispute that after completion of all the works, the complainant was asked to remit a sum of Rs. 18,700 /- towards the current consumption charges and Rs. 6,800/- towards development charges, Rs. 350/- towards labour charges and Rs. 500/- towards meter caution deposit, and Rs. 200/- towards meter connection deposit and Rs. 3,200/- towards service connection charge, all totalling to Rs. 31,450/- and after adjusting the E.M.D. amount of Rs. 9,550 /- which was already paid the net amount payable by the complainant was Rs. 21,900/-. According to the opposite party this claim was made legally according to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Boyd Rules and Regulations. As against this amount the complainant had sent only Rs. 1/800/- and the 3rd opposite party refused to receive it. Subsequently the said amount of Rs. 21,900/- was reduced to Rs. 9,600/- but that was done, according to the opposite parties, as per the Circular Memo dated 16.4.1994 which had been subsequently communicated to the complainant on 27.5.1994, and then the complainant paid the revised amount of Rs. 9,600/- on 16.6.1994 and the service connection was given on 25.7.1994. From all these it would appear clear that there was no illegal demand of any amount by the opposite party nor was there any intentional delay by them in giving the service connection.

5. Furthermore, the above facts of the case would show that as soon as the complainant availed of the services of the opposite party the service has been rendered "Consumer" has been defined under Section 2(l)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act as follows :

"(d) "consumer" means any person who,-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii)(hires or avails of) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person."

In the present case we are not concerned with any goods or even hiring of any services, but we are concerned only with the complainant availing of services as a consumer. The question is whether the complainant is a consumer, and if so from what point of time. Certainly only because he has sent an application for a service connection to the opposite parties he cannot become a consumer. Even on paying the Earnest Money Deposit amount also a person like the complainant cannot be a consumer because that is not the only amount payable by him. He will have to pay other amounts such as development charges, labour charges, meter caution deposit, meter connection deposit and service connection charges, and these amounts are demanded at different stages. Only on making payments of all these amounts and on performing the works he is required of to do, such as reporting readiness he woul

d have the right to demand service connection. Before then if there was any delay in making demand of any of the said amounts or in doing any other things by the Electricity Board, the applicant for service connection will not have any remedy as a consumer but may have remedy otherwise. In the present case the applicant had made payment of the full amount on 16.6.1994 and on such payment he had become a consumer. Soon after, i.e., on 25.7.1994 the opposite party had given the service connection. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In this connection, it is relevant to note the order of the National Commission in Additional Chief Engineer & Ors. v. Ramalingam, II (1993) CPJ 255 (NC). Therein it is clearly stated in Para 3 as follows : "3. The appellant has also raised a more fundamental issue that the respondent- complainant is not a consumer. By making an application alongwith earnest money deposit on 18.11.1990, he had only become an intending consumer, an applicant for service. The hiring of service of supply of power by the appellant could only arise after the full amount had been deposited or the connection had been given. There is considerable merit in the objection taken by the appellant on the question of jurisdiction viz., that the respondent- complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. On this ground the Revision Petition is allowed and orders of the State Commission and the District Forum are set aside." This ruling of the National Commission squarely applies to our case. 6. In the result, therefore, the complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.