Tripura

Dhalai

CC/16/1

Sri Monmohan Sinha. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.The Senior Manager and others. - Opp.Party(s)

Subrata Debnath.

09 Nov 2016

ORDER

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Dhalai District, Kamalpur.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/16/1
 
1. Sri Monmohan Sinha.
S/o- Lt. Pyari Mohan Singha, Po-Halhali, Ps-Kamalpur, Sub Division-Kamalpur.
Dhalai
Tripura
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. 1.The Senior Manager and others.
The Senior Manager, Durgachoumohani Elec. Div. Dhalai District, Kamalpur.
2. 2. The D.G.M
Garad Tilla, Elec. Div. of Dhalai District, Kamalpur.
Dhalai
Tripura
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Arindam Paul PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. Dr. Jiteswar Ahir MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. Subhadra Sen. MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 09 Nov 2016
Final Order / Judgement

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

  1. Whether the petitioner is a consumer?
  2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on part of OP No. 1 & 2.
  3. 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

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Arindam Paul]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. Dr. Jiteswar Ahir]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. Subhadra Sen.]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.