CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.

Present

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President

                                                                                                                              Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member

 

CC No.159/10

 

Friday the 30^th day of December, 2011

 

Petitioner                                                          : E.M. Mani

                                                                         Enthanakuzhiyl,

                                                                         Elckadu PO,

                                                                         Marangattupally.

                                                                         (Adv. Johney Jose Nidhiri)

                                                                      Vs.

Opposite party                                                 : The Asst. Executive Engineer,

                                                                         K.S.E.B.,Marangattupally.

 

                                                                        ORDER

 

 

             Case of the petitioner, filed on 27/05/11, is as follows:-

            Petitioner is a consumer of opposite party electricity board with vide consumer No.50. Electric connection to the petitioner’s premises is drawn through the property in between property of Enthanakuzhi Joseph and Naduthadathil Kurian. According to the petitioner there is interruption in the power supply due to the non clearance of the touching branches of the near by trees, through which the electrical line is drawn. Petitioner states that act of the opposite party, in not clearing the electric line, amounts to deficiency in service. So petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite party to take necessary steps for getting the petitioner uninterrupted power supply, petitioner claims Rs.5000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.

            Opposite party entered appearance and filed version. According to the opposite party consumer No. of the petitioner 2350 is instead of 50 as alleged by the petitioner in his petition. Service connection was given by drawing electrical over head line through the properties of Sri. Kurian Sebastian and one Sri. Jospeh. The property of Kurian Sebastian is full of trees and has some problems of touching of rubber trees.. Periodical touching clearing is being done from the section office. Frequent supply interruption and problems of low voltage as alleged by the petitioner is denied by the opposite party. Further clearing of electric line was objected by Sri.Kurian Sebastian. Considering objection and complaints of land owners on 1/6/09 a letter was issued to the petitioner by opposite party for remitting the necessary deposit work amount for shifting the line to the nearby road for ensuring smooth supply of electricity. The petitioner has not yet turned up to take any follow up action. According to the opposite party there is no deficiency in service on their part and they pray for dismissal of petition with their costs.

i)                    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?

ii)                   Reliefs and costs

Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext.B1 to Ext.B3 documents on the side of opposite party.

            Crux of the case of the petitioner is that, petitioner is not getting proper electric supply and voltage due to the non clearance of the touching trees, by the opposite party. According to the opposite party there is no interruption and voltage problem. During clearance of the touching trees the property owners, through which the electrical line was drawn, raised objections. So on 1/6/09 opposite party issued a letter to the petitioner calling him to remit the necessary deposit work amount for shifting the line to the nearby road for ensuring smooth supply of electricity. The petitioner has not yet turned up to take any follow up action. In order to prove the bonafidenss of the opposite party. Opposite party produced a copy of letter issued to the petitioner and the same is marked Ext.B3. As per Ext.B3 opposite party directed petitioner to shift the electric post from the neighboring property through the petitioner’s property.   But instead of shifting the electric line petitioner with unclean hands approached this Forum. Ext.B1and B2 are petitions given by one Kurian Sebastian against cutting of his rubber trees. Petitioner has not adduced any evidence to prove that there is interrupted power supply and low voltage. So due to the lack of evidence petitioner failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. So point no.1 is found accordingly.

            In view of the findings in point No.1 petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case no cost and compensation is ordered.

Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of December, 2011.

Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-

Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member                    Sd/-                            

Nil

Ext.B1- copy of petition given by Kuriian Sebastian dtd 7/4/09

Ext.B2-Copy of petition given byKurian Sebastian dtd 29/4/09

Ext.B3-Copy of letter dtd 30/5/09 issued by the A.E to Sri. Mani E.M

 

By Order,

 

 

Senior Superintendent.