DISTRICT FORUM :: KADAPA
PRESENT: SMT. B. DURGA KUMARI, B.A. B.L., MEMBER.
SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER
Tuesday, 4th March 2008
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 133 / 2007.
A. Aravind, S/o A. Krishna Murthy,
aged about 32 years, Business, R/o D.No. 20/788-4,
R.K. Nagar, Kadapa. ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Asst. Engineer (South), A.P. S.P.D.C,L.,
Near Head Post office, Kadapa.
2. The Superintending Engineer, A.P. TRANSCO,
APSPDCL., Kadapa. ….. Respondents.
This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 25-2-2008 in the presence of Sri K. Krishna Murthy, Advocate for complainant and Sri C.S. Riyazuddin, Advocate, for Respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri S. Abdul Khader Basha, Member),
1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the C. P. Act 1986.
The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant is the owner of the building bearing D.No. 20/780-4, Radha Kirshna Nagar, Kadapa. The electrical line is in existence to the west of petitioner’s house and previously there was an iron pole abutting complainant’s house i.e. staircase wall of the complainant on western side. The complainant requested the Respondents previously for shifting of the said iron electrical pole to some other place as the existing pole is a nuisance and danger to the lives of the complainant and his family members. The complainant apprehend there will be current shock at rainy season if any one touches the pole and further electrical line is in existence touching the complainant’s house resulting danger to the lives of inmates of the house. Therefore, the complainant sent a request letter to the Respondents for shifting of the said pole from its original place to some other distant place and on the demand of the Respondents, the complainant also paid Rs. 3,500/- towards shifting charges of the said pole. The respondent also shifted the said police at a distance of 3 feet from the complainant’s house with all connections of Electricity. While so surprisingly the Respondents once again shifted the electrical wire connections from the new cement pole to old iron pole. The complainant submits the Respondents act of resifting of the electrical line from new pole to old pole is a danger to the complainant and his inmates in the house. The Respondents have no right to play with the lives of the complainant and his family members. The complainant even now at a surprise why the Respondents shifted the electrical line from new cement pole to old iron pole. The Respondents act of shifting electrical line from new cement pole to old cement pole result danger to the lives of the complainant and his family members. If there is any untoward incident happened as a result of the Respondents shifting the line from new cement pole to old cement pole the Respondents are responsible. The complainant also issued a notice to the Respondents dt. 9-9-2007 and after receipt of the said notice the Respondents failed to shift the electrical line from old pole to new pole. The cause of action arose at Kadapa within the jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Forum. Therefore, the complainant prays the Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to pass a decree in favour of the complainant and against the Respondents. (a) Directing the Respondents both jointly and severally to remove the old current pole after shifting of the electrical line from old pole to new current pole within the time prescribed by the Hon’ble Forum and incase of Respondents failure permit the petitioner to take appropriate steps against the Respondents in the interest of justice, (b) award costs of this complainant against the Respondents, (c) grant such other reliefs or relief’s as the Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
The Respondents filed their counter denying all the allegations that the complainant mentioned in the complaint all procedure laid down in the electricity act. The existing pole situated by the said of the Road. No complaint or allegations made against this pole by any one from the date of erecting. In fact there is no dangerous or harm either to the complainant or any other person. Further the Respondents submitted that the existing iron pole and the lines running long back as the rules 79 standards and regulations of the electricity act and that there is no danger or harm to the complainant and his family members or any public. Actually the complainant has constructed his house by deviating the electrical line clearance and that he did not produce any plan before this authority to show that his house was correctly constructed. The complainant paid the estimate amount for shifting the existing pole by way of demand draft. After receiving the payment from complainant, immediately a new 8.0 meters PSCC pole was erected after erection of the new pole. The public of the locality raised an objection and approached the R1 with a written complaint dt. 6-8-2007 stating that the new pole erection is obstruction for vehicle and traffic and festival God cart it is nuisance and that it is very narrow road. After receipt of the objection from the public, immediately the R1 approached the higher authorities and informed regarding the dispute of the pole. Immediately the R2 has instructed the Divisional Engineer, Operation, Kadapa and Asst. Engineer, Operation Kadapa to inspect the dispute of the pole and they inspected the street and location of the pole and counseling with the complaint and the locality people (who are raising objection) after accepting proposal by the complainant sole the problems in the interest of public and the safe side of the family members of the complainant. The said arm with stut is fixed to the iron pole with cost of the department which is higher than the complainant’s estimate” and maintain horizontal clearance between building and line cable 4’ (1.218 meters). As per the electricity rule 79 replaced “the bare conductor with insulated” A B cable and that there is no possibility to pass current or shock. After fixing the insulated A B cable, which is no danger to anybody. The above said facts and circumstances very well aware by the complainant. The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and the issue is purely civil nature, which has to be filed before proper civil court seeking appropriate relief, as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The Respondents have no objection to erect a new pole if the complainant obtains no objection from the locality people, who made representation before the authorities with police aid during the execution of the work. The complainant filed a complaint only for harassing and threatening the authorities even though the facts aware by the complainant creating and raising problems, between locality people and these Respondents. There is no negligent act of this respondent and in the interest of the people with consent of the complainant had insulated AB cost cable fixed to the iron pole which is safe side of the complainant. The Respondents prayed this Hon’ble Forum may kindly be pleased to dismiss the complaint in the interest of justice.
On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A5 were marked and on behalf of the Respondents Ex. B1 to B3 were marked. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the complainant and Respondents. Oral arguments were heard from both sides.
On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
i. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
ii. To what relief?
Point No. 1. Ex. A1 is the carbon copy of legal notice dt. 9-9-2007 from the advocate for the complainant addressed to the R1 and copy marked to R2. Ex. A2 is the postal acknowledgement card from R1 addressed to the advocate of the complainant, dt. 14-9-2007. Ex. A3 is the postal acknowledgement card from R2 addressed to the advocate of the complainant, dt. 14-9-2007. Ex. A4 is the Xerox copy of letter dt. 8-2007 from Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, M.P. addressed to R2. Ex. A5 is the photos showing the existing electric pole (Nos. 4). Ex. B1 is the representation dt. 6-8-2007 to R1 by the local people of cooperative colony, Kadapa town. Ex. B2 is the Xerox copy of report to accompany the estimate by the R1. Ex. B3 is the letter dt. Nil of R2 addressed to the counsel for Respondents.
As per the Ex. B3 while shifting the electric pole at D.No. 20/780, R.K. Nagar the local people raised objections (Ex. B1) stating that the said erection of electric pole create problems for the vehicles in the said lane which is already small in size and requested R1 to remove it. On the request of the complainant R1 erected PSEC pole as desired by the complainant. In view of the objections raised by the locality people as per instructions of R2 the side arm with stut is fixed to the iron pole with cost of the department which is higher than the complainant’s estimate. The bare conductor with insulated AB cable was provided and there is no possibility of passing the current shock. There is no danger to anybody. This rectification is well known to the complainant, still the complainant wants that the existing iron pole to be replaced with cement pole. During the arguments it was brought to the notice of this Forum that the complainant constructed a compound wall merging the existing pole and there may be damage to the compound of the complainant, if the iron pole is replaced with cement pole.
Point No. 2. In the result, the complainant is allowed. Directing the Respondents to remove the existing iron pole and replace with cement pole. The complainant is also directed to cooperate with the Respondents at the time of erecting the cement pole and to take care of the compound wall which he merged with electric pole to his compound. The Respondents need not pay any compensation or costs to the complainant. The Respondents are directed to comply the order of the Hon’ble form within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 4th March, 2008
MEMBER PRESIDENT I/C
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant : NIL For Respondents : NIL
Exhibits marked for complainant:-
Carbon copy of legal notice dt. 9-9-2007
Postal acknowledgement card from R1,dt. 14-9-2007.
Postal acknowledgement card from R2, dt. 14-9-2007.
X/c of letter dt. 8-2007 from Y.S. Vivekananda Reddy, M.P.
Photos showing the existing electric pole (Nos. 4).
Representation dt. 6-8-2007 to R1 by the local people of cooperative
X/c of report to accompany the estimate by the R1.
Letter dt. Nil of R2 addressed to the counsel for Respondents.
MEMBER PRESIDENT I/C
Copy to :-
1) Sri K. Krishna Murthy, Advocate, Kadapa.
2) Sri C.S. Riyazuddin, Advocate, Kadapa.
1) Copy was made ready on :
2) Copy was dispatched on :
3) Copy of delivered to parties :
B.V.P. - - -
