Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.
2. Here is an appeal filedu/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has got the house bearing Khata No. 650/288, Plot No. 510 which is used as residential purpose. It is alleged that he OPs have a L.T. stay on the premises of the complainant through the asbestos roof causing lot of inconvenience to thecomplainant. Complainant was initially staying outside and after retirement, he came and found that the L.T. stay wire of the OPs is already fixed on his asbestos roof. So he made representation but no effect. Therefore, complaint was filed.
4. OPs filed written versionstating that since the alleged land is vacant since long, they have installed the LT stay wire there. However, the LT stay wire has been disconnected from the pole but the shifting was not done. Therefore, there was no deficiency in service on their part.
5. After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-
“xxx xxxxxx
In the above contest, we direct the opposite parties to ensure shifting of LT stay inquestion along with connecting wire from the premises of the complainant within a span of one month from the date of this order and also pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within the said period.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum have passed the impugned order illegally because there is no any deficiency in service continuing while the LT stay wire has been disconnected from the electric pole. He further submitted that there was no deficiency in service proved by the complainant. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugnedorder by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned order including the DFR.
8. Para - 4 of the impugned order is quite clear about the situation in the land of the complainant. Para – 4 is as follows:-
“xxx xxx xxx
4. To verify the contentions Sri S.K.Panda, learned advocate was appointed as Advocate Commissioner at the consent of both the sides and he was entrusted to visit the site, inspect and give a report. He was specially requested to conduct enquiry in presence of both the sides. Accordingly the said Advocate Commissioner has visited the spot on 2.1.2010 in presence of both the sides and opined as follows:
“In course of enquiry it was found that the LT stay in question along with connecting wire still exists and is affixed to the floor inside the asbestos roofed house of thecomplainant but the said LT stay wire has been disconnected from the electric pole.”
From the report we find, the complainant, opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 waspresent during enquiry.
From above, we find that the opposite parties have not taken any steps for shifting of LT stay line inspite of receipt of required fees for a long period. This definitely causes inconvenience to the house owner and not acting on the genuine requests of thehouse owner after receipt of required fees amounts to deficiency in service.”
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion of the learned District Forum, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed by confirming the impugned order. No cost.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.
