DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

Civil Station, Palakkad – 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 30^th day of December, 2010

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member Date of filing: 18/11/08

CC.No.126/2008

Venugopalan.N.P,

S/o.Pazhanelan,

Nampullippura House,

Kinavallur Post,

Parali,

Palakkad – 678615. - Complainant

(By Adv.Saju Abraham.L)

Vs

1. The Assistant Engineer,

Electrical Major Section,

Parali.

(By Adv.L.Namassivayan)

2. The Secretary,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Thiruvananthapuram. - Opposite parties

(By Adv.L.Namassivayan)

O R D E R

By Smt.PREETHA.G.NAIR, MEMBER

Case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant filed an application to the 1^st opposite party to shift the single phase electric line passing through his property on 14/07/2008. Also he paid Rs.75/- for this aspect. Thereafter 1^st opposite party came to the property and inspected. Then the 1^st opposite party demanded Rs.6,680/- for the cost of shifting the single phase electric line. The complainant deposited Rs.6,680/- to the 1^st opposite party office on 21/08/2008. Again opposite party demanded Rs.240/- as

the cost of stay wire on 22/08/2008. Then the complainant has asked for the written notice for the remittance of Rs.240/-. Thereafter the opposite party neither sent the notice nor shifted the electric line. On 17/10/08 the 1^st opposite party has sent notice stating that the cost of shifting the electric line is Rs.7,480/- as per the revised labour data and the balance amount of Rs.800/- to be remitted within one week, otherwise will lost the seniority. On 20/10/08, the complainant has paid Rs.800/- to the 1^st opposite party office and the electric line shifted on 5/11/08. The complainant stated that he has paid the full amount of Rs.6,680/- on 21/08/08. Further alleged that the opposite party failed to include Rs.240/- in the estimate and for this omission he has incurred further amount of Rs.560/- as revised rates. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant submitted that the opposite parties were negligent and deficient in taking an action on the application given by the complainant on 14/07/08. So the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties to pay the excess amount of Rs.560/- and Rs.2,500/- as compensation with interest and cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. The opposite parties stated that the complainant is not a consumer. Further opposite parties stated that the cost was calculated as per the laws and directions of Kerala State Electricity Board. Then the opposite parties stated that work was completed under the priority list and also the availability of raw materials. On 28/06/2008 the Kerala State Electricity Board increased the labour data. But the 1^st opposite party stated that the circular of increasing labour data was received in the 1^st opposite party office on 17/10/08. On that day the 1^st opposite party calculated the

increased labour data of the complainant and sent notice to the complainant. Also the non-availability of raw materials are caused the delay of works in the complainant's property. The 1^st opposite party admitted that at the first time the labour charge of 2 stay lines are calculated instead of 3 stay lines. Thereafter 1^st opposite party has corrected the labour charge of three stay lines and demanded the complainant to pay Rs.240/- as the cost of one stay line. Then the 1^st opposite party admitted that at the first time Rs.6,680/- was calculated as the labour data. Thereafter the 1^st opposite party has received the revised labour data on 17/10/08. Thus the 1^st opposite party has calculated the revised labour data as Rs.7,480/- and sent notice to the complainant. The opposite parties stated that the complainant has paid Rs.6,680/- on 21/08/08 and demanded the balance payment of Rs.800/- on 17/10/08. According to the opposite parties there is no deficiency in service on their part. So opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost.

The evidence adduced by the complainant and opposite parties consists of their respective affidavits and documents. Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 and B2 series marked on the side of opposite parties. Later complainant filed IA for production of stock register for the period from 14/7/08 to 31/12/08. Opposite parties produced the original stock register. The 1^st opposite party was cross examined. Matter was heard.

Now the issues for consideration are;

1. whether the complainant is a consumer or not?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. If so, what is the relief and cost complainant entitled to?

Issue No.1:

The complainant has filed application to the 1^st opposite party to shift the single phase electric line passing through his property on 14/07/08 and he paid Rs.75/- for this aspect. Ext.A1 is the receipt for the payment of Rs.75/-. The afore said averment in the complaint has not been denied or disputed by the opposite parties in the version. Therefore it can be considered that the aforesaid case of the complainant has been admitted by the opposite parties. Thus it can be concluded that the complainant has availed the service of the opposite parties for removal of electric line can be considered as a consumer coming within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So the complainant is a consumer. Thus the 1^st issue can be answered accordingly.

Issues 2 & 3:

We perused relevant documents on record. As per Ext.A2 the complainant has paid Rs.6,680/- on 21/08/08. Also the complainant stated that the 1^st opposite party demanded Rs.6,680/- as the cost for shifting the electric line and he paid the amount. Further the 1^st opposite party has demanded Rs.240/- as excess amount. Then the complainant has required the notice or receipt. According to Ext.A4 the 1^st opposite party stated that as per the revised labour data of Rs.7,480/- was the estimate amount. So the complainant has to pay Rs.800/- as excess amount to shift the electric line. In the affidavit complainant stated that he has paid Rs.800/- on 20/10/08 to the 1^st opposite party office. Then the 1^st opposite party has shifted the electric line on 5/11/08. Further the complainant stated that the 1^st opposite party

has not installed one stay wire as per the estimate. After filing this complaint on 19/12/08 the opposite party has installed one stay wire on the property. The allegation of the complainant is that some other applicants have not paid the excess amount as per the revised order. No evidence was produced by the complainant to show other such applicants have not paid the excess amount. The 1^st opposite party was cross examined and clarified the stock register. Attested copy of stock register is marked as Ext.B2 series. At the time of cross examination 1^st opposite party stated that raw materials are not fully available on July, August, and September months in the year 2008. Raw materials are supplied by the demands of 1^st opposite party. No evidence was produced by the 1^st opposite party to show raw materials are demanded on or after 21/08/2008. According to Ext.A4 1^st opposite party stated that the labour charge of installation of stay wires are not calculated in the previous application dtd.14/07/2008. At the time of cross examination, 1^st opposite party stated that stay lines are installed for other consumers on 7, 8 and 9 months in the year 2008 shows in the work book. In short the 1^st opposite party has not shifted the electric line of complainant in the proper time. According to Ext.B1 the revised labour data was sent to the 1^st opposite party on 16/10/08. But the opposite parties stated that the work was delayed due to the non availability of raw materials. In the present case the complainant has paid the amount of Rs.6,680/-. The opposite parties have not shifted the electric line. Thereafter the 1^st opposite party demands excess amount of Rs.800/-. Then the complainant paid Rs.800/-. On 05/11/2008 the 1^st opposite party has shifted the electric line. In the above discussions we hold the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence the complaint allowed.

We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.560/- (Rupees Five hundred and sixty only) as the excess amount paid for shifting the electric line and Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred only) as compensation and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings to the complainant. Order to be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 30^th day of December, 2010

Sd/-

Seena.H,

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair,

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K,

Member

Appendix

Witnesses examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witnesses examined on the side of opposite party

DW1 – Shri.Anilkumar.A.P

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Receipt No.138 dt.14/07/08 for Rs.75/-

Ext.A2 – Receipt No.2818 dt.21/08/08 for Rs.6,680/-

Ext.A3 – Receipt No.14300dt.20/10/08 for Rs.800/-

Ext.A4 – Letter No.DB/DW/08-09/55/17.10.08 sent by 1^st opposite party to complainant

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Ext.B1 – Rates for installation of lines

Ext.B2 (Series) – Attested copy of stock register

Cost (Allowed)

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only)