In an appeal, TamilNadu Electricity Ombudsman, Chennai has disposed by holding that the appellant taking a different stand for name transfer of Electricity Service Connection is considered as new prayer which is not place before the CGRF.

Order of Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) / Dharmapuri dated 29.12.20 - Download Order Copy

The appellant applied for the name transfer of LT agricultural Service Connection No. 08-007-012-003 but the Electricity Board/licensee refused to effect Name Transfer. Aggreived Petitioner has approached CGRF of Dharmapuri Electricty Distribution Circle (EDC) for Name Transfer for the agricultural service connection from his father's name. Since agricultural electricity connection number (Service Number 08-007-012-003) has not been mentioned in the partition deed of the petitioner. So CGRF holds that if the petitioner approaches the court and provides documents regarding the right to electricity connection, action will be taken in this regard.

Appeal Petition Before TamilNadu Electricity Ombudsman

The appellant has prayed for name transferring of an agricultural Service Number 08-007-012-003 which is in his father's Name.

Document Required for Electricity Service Connection Name Transfer

1. Legal Heirship Certificate from Tahsildar
2. No Objection Certificate from the other legal Heirs
3. Fresh Application Agreement

Regarding the present case - Issued Place Before Ombudsman

The Disputed LT agriculrual SC No.08-007-012-003 was originally effected on 26.04.1971 vide OTR No.157903 in the name of Thiru K.Munusamy, Bandahally (1st Owner) and not inthe name of Thiru S.Munusamy who is father of the appellant. Further No Name Transfer effected from Thiru K.Munusamy to Thiru S.Munusamy previously. Only based on the similarity, the appellant requested name transfer by mentioning that the service is in his father's name.

Order passed by Ombudsman

On perusal of the application, revenue records, patition deed and sale deed, it is noted that thiru K.Munusamy was the holder of the Electric Service Connection No.08-007-012-003. Thiru K.Munusamy and Thiru.S.Munusamy are different persons. Therefore, I am of the view that the owner of the service connection is K.Munusamy and not Thiru.S.Munusamy.

During the hearing the appellant has stated that there are two service connections in the name of Munusamy viz. SC No.3 in the name of Thiru. K.Munusamy and SC No.11 in the name of his father Thiru.S.Munusamy. Further, he has argued that due to mistake of the licensee the service connection numbers are wrongly updated in the computer and hence requested for name transfer of SC No.11 in his favour.

The original petition filed in the CGRF for name transfer of service connection is SC No.08-007-012-003. The appeal has also been filed for SC No.08-007-012-003. Now, the appellant cannot take a different stand to name transfer of SC No.08-007-012-11 in his favour since it is considered as a new prayer which is not placed before the CGRF. The Electricity Ombudsman is the appellate authority and only the prayers placed before the CGRF alone will be taken for appeal. Therefore, the prayer of the appellant for name transfer of the agricultural service number 08-007-012-3 is not feasible of compliance.