O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner filed on 16..10..2009 is as follows: Petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party with vide consumer No. 9418 for the last 7 years. According to the petitioner he is regularly paying the bill issued by opposite party. While availing the connection the electric line was drawn to the petitioners house from the electric post situated in the boundary of one Mathew, Chazhisseril. On 22..8..2009 said Mathew, in collusion with line man of the opposite party, dismantled the service wire of the petitioner and thus the electric connection was disconnected. When the petitioner resisted the same service wire was connected to an electric post installed in the property of Joy -2- Mankudi . According to the petitioner, opposite part at the instigation of the C.M Mathew, Chazhisseril, issued a notice to the petitioner Dtd: 12..10..2009. In the said notice opposite party threatened the petitioner with disconnection of the electricity. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party amount to deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction for canceling the notice Dtd: 12..10..2009. Petitioner also prays for an injunction restraining the opposite parties from taking any proceedings as per the notice dtd: 12..10..2009. The petitioner also claims Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings. Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is not maintainable. Opposite party admitted that the petitioner is a consumer of the opposite party. The service to the petitioner was originally taken by drawing one span over head line along the property of Mathen Chazhisseril. This was done with the consent of Mathew Chazhisseriyil. The property is vegetated by rubber trees. The service wire connected to the petitioner’s meter was frequently broken due to falling of rubber trees and its branches. Hence for proper maintenance of supply KSEB authorities shifted the service wire to the nearest post erected, later in a ‘thondu’, in between the petitioner and Joy Makudi. This post was erected by extending line from the post in the property of Mathew, Chazhisseril for giving supply to Smt. Saly Sebastian. Service connection to the petitioner was not disconnected. Action taken by the opposite party is legal and as per the provisions of law. Once Mathew Chazhisseril had -3- given consent to draw electric line through his property for giving supply to the petitioner and Smt. Saly Sebastian. Now he has put a request to dismantle the line and structures for his requirement. Opposite party has only the way to investigate other route with the help of consumers. If there is no settlement on the issue the matter may be taken up with the ADM Kottayam District. As the consent from Sri. Mathew, Chazhisseril has withdrawn the respondent noticed the feasible routes possible. Petitioner has to clear objections, if any, for the same notices given to the petitioner and Smt. Sali Sebastian. According to the opposite party, there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs. Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A3 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 documents on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1 Crux of the case of the petitioner is that servants of the opposite party in collusion with Mathew, Chazhisseril and Joy Mankudi is making preparation to disconnect the electricity availed to the petitioner by the opposite party. -4- According to the opposite party they acted in accordance with the law and there is no deficiency in service on their part. Opposite party produced a copy of request issued by Mathew Chazhisseril to the opposite party. Said document is marked as Ext. B1. In Ext. B1 Sri.. Mathew Chazhissril requested the opposite party to remove electric line from his property for construction of his residential house. According to the opposite party the service wire connected to the petitioner’s meter was broken due to falling of rubber trees and its branches. Hence for proper maintenance of supply, KSE Board authority shifted the service wire to the nearest post erected in a ‘thondu’ In response to Ext. B1 letter. notice Dtd: 12..10..2009, was issued to the petitioner. As per section 163 of the electricity act 2003 licensee or any person authorized by the licensee had the power to enter in to a premises to which electricity is supplied . Remove the supply of electricity, if no longer required, or to take away or cut of such supply, works or apparatus belonging to the licensee. As per section 164 licensee has the power to place telegraph lines and post for the purpose of a telegraph established or maintain. Deficiency is defined in S- 2(g) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, as any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for time being in force has been undertaking to be perform in pursuance of a contract or service. Here dismantling of a service wire from one post and connecting it to another post viz. a viz. are matters concerning the opposite party licensee with -5- regard to the distribution of electricity. Petitioner has not proved any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.. So point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 In view of finding in point No. 1, petition is dismissed. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of June, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sri. K.N Radhakrishnan, Member APPENDIX Documents for the petitioner Ext. A1: Copy of the letter dtd: 12..10..2009 issued by the A.E to the petitioner Ext. A2: Copy of petition dtd: 25..9..2009 given by the petitioner to the Deputy Chief Engineer. Ext. A3: Copy of complaint given by C.M Mathew, to the A.E Documents for the opposite party: Ext. B1: Copy of the request from Mathew, Chazhisseriyil. Ext. B2: Copy of notice Dtd: 12..10..2009 issued by the opposite party to the petitioner.
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
