BEFORE
District Consumer Redressal Forum,
Dhalai, Kamalpur
Case No. 1/CC/KMP/ of 2016
Sri Monmohan Sinha
S/O Late Pyari Mohan sinha
Of Halhali, PS- Kamalpur,
Dhalai, Tripura
…………………… Complainant
Vs
1. The Senior Manager
Durga Chowmuhani electric Division
Dhalai, Tripura.
2. The Deputy General Manager
Garatilla Electric Division, Dhalai
……………… Opposite Parties.
Present
Sri Arindam Paul.
President,
District Consumer Redressal Furum,
Dhalai, Kamalpur.
M E M B E R S
1. Smt. Subhadra Sen
2. Dr.Jiteswar Ahir
LD. C O U N S E L S
For the Complainant : Sri Monmohan Sinha
For the Opp. Parties : Mr.S.Dasgupta.Ld.Advocate
Date of Institution : 21-01-2016
Date of argument : 04-08-2016
Date of judgment : 09-11-2016
J U D G M E N T
1. The genesis of this case is a written consumer complaint filed by Sri Monmohan Sinha alleging deficiency of service against TSECL represented by its Sr. Manager, Durgachowmahani Division and Deputy General Manager, Garadtilla Division.
2. The complaint filed by Sri Sinha has two aspects viz; (1) alleged non- performance of a contract between the electrical department(TSECL) and the complainant by which they had agreed to take his house on rent for setting up a office of the electrical division(2) the next alleged deficiency is regarding a high tension electrical line running over head the land of the complainant because of which it is alleged that he is unable to complete his roof of his first floor as same comes dangerously close to the high tension line. It could be assumed from the allegation of the complainant that he allowed the high tension line on the basis of the promise that his house will be taken on rent for setting up electric office.
3. The respondent side appeared and filed their written statement by which they denied entering into any contract between the complainant and submitted that there is a prescribed procedure for removal of high tension line and the complainant has not approached them in the prescribed manner to remove the said line neither has he paid the required fees for shifting the line.
4. Following issues were framed for just decision of this case.
I S S U E S
- Whether the petitioner is a consumer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of OP No. 1 & 2.
- Whether petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, what shall be quantum & who shall pay the same?
5. DISCUSSION, DECISIONS AND REASONS THEREOF
As the complaint was based more on factual aspects and not on documents , to determine whether the high tension line is at a safe distance from the house of the complainant a local inspection was carried out with due notice to the parties by two of the members of the District Forum(who have since demitted office). They filed a report after conducting a field visit in which both the complainant and the respondent side were present and as per their report dated 25-06-2016 the high tension line is just one feet six inches from the roof of the complainant. The opposite parties raised objection to the report stating that the process adopted was faulty and the complainant during the field visit did not adduce any approved plan of the building. The measurement of the roof as to how far it shall extend was shown by a mason following a guess work. Their objection was also duly noted.
6. Relying upon Exbt. A which is a copy of regulation 4.77 to 4.87 of Electricity Supply Code Regulation, 2011 published in Tripura Gazette, Extraordinary issue, March 13, 2012 the opposite party submits that to change from high tension to low tension and vice-versa the consumer must pay necessary charges and same shall be shifted within 4 billing cycles. The complainant did not pay any such fees. Moreover, as per the said regulation the safe distance of a high tension line from any installation is about 4 ft and according to their calculation the high tension line drawn over the house of the complainant is about 6 ft distance.
7. We have perused various correspondences between the complainant and the opposite party. So far as enforcement of the contract to take and let out the house on rent is concerned the matter is within the jurisdiction of the competent Civil Court and not of consumer forum thus, we refrain from arriving at a decision as to whether the non-fulfillment of the contractual liability amounts of deficiency of service or not.
8. There is, however, no doubt that the complainant Sri Monmohan Sinha is a consumer falling within the definition of the Consumer Protection Act and TSECL is a service provider. It would be apparent that the complainant was not a consumer of a high tension connection. He is a domestic consumer and may at best subscribe to a 3 phase low tension line. Thus, it would be apparent that the opposite party had on the assurance of taking the house of the complainant on rent to establish electric office managed to obtain his implied consent into drawing a high tension line over his land. As the complainant is not a consumer of the high tension connection and was not drawing any benefit from the HT line he cannot be asked to pay for its relocation or removal.
9. It further appears that the high tension line is also dangerously close to the roof of the complainant situated at a distance of 1 ft 6¨ only when admittedly it should be at a distance of a minimum of 4 ft. We have duly noticed the objection of the opposite parties to the report submitted after the field verification. Their objection finds no favour with us because of the following reasons;
(i) No approved building plan needed to be shown as it is construction of a first floor of an existing building and hence its roof cannot extend beyond a certain limit because of the limits of structural design.
(ii) Moreover Tripura Building Rules 2004 does not extend to villages and hence no approved plan is likely to be there.
(iii) Further it is the same building that opposite parties wanted to take on rent and so they are aware of its design and layout.
In spite of repeated request both verbal and written the opposite party did not remove the line. They could not show that they have taken written consent of the complainanat before extending the line over his land. Thus non removal of the same despite request amounts to deficiency in service.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the opinion that the petitioner who is a consumer has suffered for the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party ie TSECL represented by its DGM and Sr. Manager. It is, therefore, ordered that the Opposite Party shall within 15 days of receipt of a copy of this order shift the high tension line passing over the roof of complainant Sri Monmohan Sinha to a safe distance free of cost. They shall also be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to Sri Monmohan Sinha as compensation for deficiency in service as well as cost of litigation.
11. The case is disposed of with the above directions. Supply a copy of this judgment to both the parties free of cost.
12. The case is disposed of on contest.
MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DHALAI TRIPURA : KAMALPUR | MEMBER DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DHALAI TRIPURA : KAMALPUR | PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DHALAI TRIPURA : KAMALPUR |