IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 22nd day of Decmber, 2023.
Filed on 08.06.2023
Present
- Smt.P.R.Sholy, B.A.L, LLB (President in Charge )
- Smt C.K.Lekhamma . B.A. LLB (Member)
CC/No.153/2023
between
Complainant:- Opposite parties:-
Dr. N.Bahuleyan 1. The Chief Deputy Controller EC
Pazhaniyil Puthenveedu Madhava Junction, Harippad.
South Monkuzhi, Alappuzha-690514
Pullikkanakku.P.O,
Mavelikkara Taluk, 2. The Director & MD, KSEB Ltd,
Alappuzha-690537 Vaidyuthi Bhavan Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram-695004
(Adv. Jayan.C.Das Ops 1 &2)
3. A.F. Electrical, KSEB, Kayamkulam East
Alappuzha-690502
O R D E R
SMT.C.K.LEKHAMMA (MEMBER)
1. Brief facts of the complainant’s case are as follows:-
The complainant alleged that without his knowledge the opposite party shifted the electric post from the land of his neighbour, Mr. John Kollamkuttiyil who was the 1st consumer of the opposite parties Consumer No.1155313003339 of 1987, to his property. From the said connection opposite party had given connection to the complainant’s ancestral house. The complainant alleged that due to the above act of opposite parties, he is unable to do any cultivation on his land. Even though the complainant tried to find out on whose request the electric post shifted to his land the opposite party could not give any information about it. Further, the complainant reported to the District Collector, Alappuzha who transferred it to the Bharanikavu Panchayath headquarters at Alappuzha. A representative of them had visited the spot. But the village authority communicated that they could not do anything about it. Further approached the Minister of Electricity who asked the complainant to report the Deputy Chief Engineer Haripad, who has asked to the complainant to deposit money for shifting the post but the complainant was not agreed to do so since the shifting of the post by the opposite party was an arbitrary act on the part of the opposite parties. Consequently, sent a registered notice dtd. 30/4/2023 to the 3rd opposite party. They replied that they could not shifted the post since it is the most suitable place, where the post at present situated. It is averred that the 1st post was placed over a 4ft wide revenue land where nobody can plant any trees. The next post was through over his private land used as a pathway. Further alleged that the opposite parties are cutting every year his breadfruit trees near the electric post. Moreover, if the electric post had not been placed there, he would have been able to plant high-yielding variety of coconut trees there. Due to the above act of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.6000/- every year. Thereby the complainant has suffered mental agony and other hardships. Hence he approached the Commission and sought the following reliefs.
1. To direct the opposite parties to shift the Electric post to its original location at the Kollamkuttyil’s land.
2. To direct the opposite parties to compensate the complainant for the continued financial loss due to the wrongful act of them.
3. To direct the opposite parties to pay compensation for mental and physical suffering and costs of the proceedings.
2. Version of the opposite parties are as follows:-
The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The Power of the telegraph authority to place and maintain telegraph lines and posts, as well as the power to enter the property for repair or removal of telegraph lines or posts, are clearly defined under Sections 10 and 11 respectively, of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003 stipulates that the Appropriate Government may confer upon any public officer, license or any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity under the Act, subject to the conditions and restrictions, the powers possessed by the telegraph authority under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. The Government of Kerala, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 164 of the Electricity Act, 2003, conferred upon the Engineers of the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited of and above the rank of Assistant Engineers, all the powers which the telegraph authority possess under part III of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 with respect to the placing of poles. This was notified further in G.O (P) No.5/2020/Power dated 24/8/2020 and in the official Gazette dated 25th August 2020, as well as in the official Gazette dtd. 8/8/2017.
The complainant is a domestic consumer under the Electrical Section, Kayamkulam East, having Consumer No. 1155310019495 with a registered connected load of 4650 watts. An electric post is situated on the roadside, abutting their large compound wall. As stated in the complaint, it is true that a service connection was provided to Thomas Kunjumon John, bearing Consumer No.1155313003339, and an electric post was inserted in his property at the North East corner. Thereafter a service connection application was submitted by the complainant’s mother on her property situated 250 meters away from the said post. It has been asserted by John that the existing post was shifted to the property of the complainant as part of facilitating line extension. Additionally on 15/3/2010 the complainant and Sri. Thomas Kunjumon John entered into an agreement wherein the complainant consented to relinquish a part of his property on the southern side for enhancement of width of the road.
It is submitted that the post can be shifted to its original position by remitting the requisite expenses incurred in it and also with the consent of consumer No. 1155313003339. For any alteration or realignment in the existing line. The beneficiary should bear the cost as per Regulation 95 (4) (c) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014. Therefore the complainant should remit the labour charges and material charges required for shifting the electric post, as estimated by the licensee based on the approved cost data from time to time, in accordance with Regulation 33 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014. However, the complainant is reluctant to remit the applicable expenses. Further submitted that the complainant has already filed a suit as OS 387/2022 before the Hon’ble Munsiff Court, Kayamkulam, to reclaim the right over his relinquished land. The case is still not adjudicated and is pending finalization.
Currently, the electric post is strategically placed to optimize the use of the pathway. The road with an average width of four meters, serves the needs of over 18 families and also accommodates an SNDP temple along its route. However, if the complainant’s request is granted, it would create a significant obstruction for four-wheelers, effectively blocking their passage and reducing the road width to a narrow footpath suitable only for pedestrians.
The complainant has already constructed a substantial compound wall adjacent to the electric post located on the northern side of the road. The main contention raised is the complainant’s inability to plant two new coconut tree saplings. It is crucial to uphold the equal protection of rights for everyone, without being influenced by the complainant’s personal preferences. Granting the complainant’s request and instructing the opposite parties to consider their representation for post relocation may set a precedent, leading to a recurring issue of denying the erection of electric posts near other residences. The location in question comprises several destitute and ordinary people who are currently benefiting from the existing extent of the pathway area. It is submitted that the electric post can still be shifted if the complainant remits the requisite fees despite the persistence of the above-mentioned issues as well as the decision of Munsiff Court.
3. The points that arises for determination are as follows:-
1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any reliefs as sought for?
2. Reliefs and Costs?
4. The complainant appeared in person, he adduced oral evidence as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A13 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the complainant.
5. Point. No. 1:-
The case of the complainant is that the opposite parties shifted the electrical post from the land of his neighbour Thomas Kunjumon John, Kollamkuttiyil, which was installed in 1987, to his land. Due to the above unlawful act of opposite parties, complainant suffered mental agony since he was not able to do any cultivation on his land. Moreover, the complainant approached the various authorities for settling the disputes and also approached the opposite party to find out who had paid for shifting the post but the opposite party did not give any name on the record of a person requested for shifting. As per the enquiry, the name of the person who requested the shifting of the post was not there in the records of opposite parties, no payment was made for shifting. Even though the complainant requested the opposite party to shift the post to its earlier position, the opposite parties were not ready to do so. The complainant alleged that the unlawful act of shifting the electric post caused a lot of inconvenience to the complainant since he is unable to make any cultivation on his land or plant new coconut saplings. Due to this, the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 6000/- every year. Hence filed this complaint.
The opposite parties denied the entire allegations against them and contended that the complainant is a domestic customer of them. It is admitted that a service connection was provided to one Thomas Kunjumon John and an electric post was installed at the North East corner of his property in the year 1987. Thereafter, a service connection application was submitted by the complainant's mother to her property situated 250 M away from the said post. So the existing post was shifted to the property of complainant as part of facilitating line extension. Further, contended that considering the request of the complainant and communicated to the complainant that the post can be shifted to its original position by remitting the requisite expenses incurred in it and also with the consent of Mr. Thomas Kunjumon John. It is clarified in their version that the complainant should remit the required expenses of shifting the post as per Regulation 95(4) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014. However, the complainant is reluctant to remit the applicable expenses. Hence this complaint is made on an experimental basis. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.
Admittedly, the existing electric post was shifted from the property of Thomas Kunjumon John to the complainant's property. According to the opposite parties, shifting was a part of facilitating the extension since a service connection application was submitted by the complainant's mother to her property situated 250 meters away from the existing post. But the complainant argued that such shifting of the post was possible that his neighbour used his connivance with the lineman while replacing the wooden post with a cement post. The complainant alleges that at the time of shifting, he was in his workplace at Kanpur, UP. It is to be noted that the dispute in connection with the shifting of the electric post arose in the year 2010. On perusal of the records, it revealed that all these years complainant approached various authorities to settle the dispute. The grievance of the complainant is that due to the unlawful shifting of the post, the opposite parties are cutting the yielding trees, near the presently situated post every year. Moreover, he cannot plant two new coconut tree saplings there. But nothing is before us to prove that the present position of the disputed post causes any damage to the trees planted by the complainant as well as his difficulty in planting new trees. The documents submitted are not sufficient to prove the above allegations in the complaint. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that Ext.A4 dt. 16.5. 2023, the report of the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Electricity Board who visited the spot with the Executive Engineer and Asst. Executive Engineer of the concerned section and found that the disputed post is situated in a suitable location and the electric line is drawn through the most suitable path. If the position of the post is changed, the line drawn straight will also change. Further, it will be difficult to replace the post since many trees are in that locality and hence there is no need to replace the post. Further in the version, opposite parties has taken a stand that they are ready to replace the post if the complainant will be remitted the requisite fee and consent of the owner of the neighbouring land. It appears that the complainant is not ready to do so. For the aforementioned reasons, we cannot find any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Therefore, it is found that there is no merit in the complaint.
6. Point No. 2:-
In the result, the complaint stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 22nd day of December, 2023.
Sd/-Smt.C.K.Lekhamma (Member)
Sd/- Smt. P.R. Sholy (President in Charge)
Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - Dr. N. Bahulayen(complainant)
Ext.A1 - Copy of Reply from Public Information Officer Haripad
Ext.A2 - Copy of Letter from Asst. Ex. Engineer
Ext.A3 - Copy of Reply Right to Information Act
Ext.A4 - Copy of Letter from Deputy Chief Engineer,
Ext.A5 - Copy of Letter from Deputy Chief Engineer
Ext.A6 - Copy of Letter dtd. 3/5/2023
Ext.A7 - Copy of Letter dtd. 14/1/2021
Ext.A8 - Copy of Letter dtd. 14/1/2021
Ext.A9 - Copy of Location Sketch
Ext.A10 - Copy of Letter dtd. 13/4/2021
Ext.A11 - Copy of Tax receipt
Ext.A12 - Copy of Location Sketch
Ext.A13 - Copy of Letter dtd. 31/12/2022.
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
To
Complainant/Oppo. party/S.F.
By Order
Assistant Registrar
Typed by:- Br/-
Compared by:-
