KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

REVISION PETITION No.87/2022

ORDER DATED: 27.09.2024

(Against the Order in I.A.No.73/2022 in C.C.No.44/2022 of DCDRC, Kottayam)

PRESENT:

REVISION PETITIONERS/OPPOSITE PARTIES:

(by Adv. Aniyoor K. Venugopalan Nair)

Vs.

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

O R D E R

SRI. AJITH KUMAR  D.  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          This is a petition filed under Section 47 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the opposite parties 1 to 3 in C.C.No.44/2022 on the files of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam (the District Commission for short). 

          2.       The complainant/respondent had filed an application as I.A.No.73/2022 and obtained a direction against the opposite parties to provide the complainant a temporary electric connection till the disposal of the case.  Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order this revision was filed.

          3.       The complainant had applied for an agricultural connection to his land and he had fixed a permanent structure with a shackle and sufficient insulation.  But the opposite parties had insisted to install PSC poles alleging safety measures.

The prayer was strongly opposed by the opposite parties on the reason that it may work out against security measures.  Disregarding the objection raised by the opposite parties, the District Commission had issued a direction to provide the complainant temporary electric connection.

          4.       According to the revision petitioner the District Commission did not consider the fact that GI post is a threat to human life and PSCC pole is required to avoid electrocution.  It is also contended that the finding of the District Commission that the shackle fixation would provide adequate insulation is wrong and against statutory rules.  Hence, the revision petitioner would seek for setting aside the order passed by the District Commission.

          5.       The respondent/complainant had entered appearance on receipt of notice from this Commission.  The records from the District Commission were called for. 

          6.       Heard both sides.  Perused the records.

          7.       The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that circular dated 04.10.2019 bearing no.D(D&T) D6-AE3/DCC-MoM-15/2019 stipulates that PSC poles shall be used to give connections.  According to the District Commission temporary connection can be given if a permanent fixture is provided by the applicant.  Weather proof wire can be used by fastening support wire to the permanent fixture if sufficient ground clearance can be established. 

          8.       According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, if temporary connection is given without providing adequate safeguard the opposite parties would be held liable if any eventuality occurs on account of electrocution.

 The learned counsel for the respondent had drawn our attention to the explanatory notes on the proposed regulations wherein it is stated under Rule 4(13) as:

“for electrified areas up to 150KW or such higher load as the Commission may specify the connection charges for new connection shall be fixed on the basis of the load, category of connection sought and average cost of connection of the distribution licensee so as to avoid site inspection and estimation of demand charges for each and every case individually”.

According to the counsel for the complainant, it is the duty of the Electricity Board to provide connection and they cannot compel the complainant to fix PSC poles at the expense of the complainant.  The learned counsel had also cited a ruling of the Madras High Court reported in Gunasekara Senthil P. Vs. Assistant Electricity Engineer 2020 KHC 2896.  The Hon’ble Madras High Court took a view that it is the duty of the Electricity Board to ensure that the power supply reaches up to the meter box/fuse carrier.  So according to the learned counsel for the complainant, the compulsion of the revision petitioners to provide PSC poles is against the statutory provisions and hence the objection will not sustain.

          9.       District Commission gave directions to the Electricity Board to provide temporary connection without considering the security reasons raised by the opposite parties.  For reaching such conclusion, evidence has to be let in. It was improper on the part of the District Commission in directing the opposite parties to provide temporary connection without properly considering the security reasons stated by the opposite parties and hence the order is liable to be reversed. On consideration of the grievance of the complainant, an early disposal of the case has to be ordered. Therefore, the order in I.A.No.73/2022 dated 30.09.2022 in C.C.No.44/2022 on the files of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kottayam is set aside and the I.A. is dismissed.

          10.     The District Commission is directed to dispose of C.C.No.44/2022 within sixty days from the date of receipt of the order in this revision.

SL