SRI BIJAYA KUMAR DAS,PRESIDENT:-
Deficiency in service in respect of non-resuming of power supply are the allegations arrayed against the Opp.Parties.
2. Complaint, in nutshell reveals that complainant is an inhabitant of Vil:-Dianpatna samil Bharatpur,Kendrapara and is availing power supply from the Opp.Parties since 2009 as a domestic category of consumer bearing No.01869697. Complainant is paying his electrical dues regularly since 2009. On dtd.27.09.15 due to heavy rain and strong wind the service wire of the complainant was disconnected from the pole due to the falling of the broken Chakunda tree branches on the service wire. When complainant requested OP No.2 to reconnect the service wire on dtd.30.07.15, but Ops are not reconnecting the service wire for which complainant and his family members are living without electricity, such acts of Opp.Parties give mental agony and financial loss to the complainant for which the complaint before this Forum with prayer that a direction may be given to OP No.3 to reconnect the service wire of the complainant from the pole where the electric line was supplied earlier along with Rs.5,000/- for deficiency in service for mental agony and financial loss.
3. Being noticed on behalf of all Ops OP No.3 appeared through their Ld.Counsel and filed written statement into the dispute formally Challenging the maintainability of the complaint and submitting the facts, it is stated that the electricity was supplied to complainant from the pole situated near Kartik Chaulis house and after disconnection it is unsafe to give power supply from the said pole. It is also stated that some growing trees and ponds alongwith protest of Mr. Kartik Chauli are the obstacles to give power supply from the said electric pole. It is averred that complainant illegally earlier shifted the service wire and unauthorized availed supply from a pole illegally erected near temple and the Ops are taking steps for removal of such pole illegally installed near the temple. The Ops are trying remove the illegal pole installed near the temple. Considering the objection of Kartik Chauli in another spot and suggested the complainant to get LT connection by installing one pole and 50 meter AB cable at his own cost as per the rules of the Ops. Though the complainant agreed, but did not co-operate the Ops. It is further averred that in the circumstances if the complainant does not comply the provisions power supply can not given and no deficiency in service committed by Ops as alleged by the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for complainant and case of the Ops on merit. It is an admitted fact that complainant was availing power supply from the Ops and now the power supply has been disrupted due to non-connection of service wire from the nearest LT pole to complainant’s house. The allegation is placed before this Forum for non-connection of service wire. The cause for non-connection of service wire were in detail averred in the written statement of the Ops. It is stated that due to objection of one Kartik Chauli who protested to hang service wire over his land alongwith other obstacle of growing trees, digging of ponds, which are unsafe to provide the power supply to the complainant’s premises. It is also the version of the Ops that complainant was availing power supply illegally by shifting the service connection to a pole illegally erected near a temple and the Ops are taking steps to remove the electric pole. Complainant also filed a petition on dtd.19.10.15, intimating the Forum that a LT pole is situated over Plot No.2243 which belongs to the complainant’s land and from the said pole a service connection is given to the temple of Budhijagulai. This Forum to ascertain the facts of installation of LT pole and service connection to the complainant’s premises as it is the main crox of dispute appointed Mr. R.K.Sahoo as Pleader Commissioner to give his opinion. Ld. Pleader Commissioner, after conducting the formalities presented his report before this Forum which is marked as Annexure-A-1. The enquiry report of the Pleader Commissioner reveals that the Petitioners are living without electricity and the nearest LT(Electric)pole situated near Budhijagulai temple and the difference is 100 fts between the LT pole to the complainant’s house. It is further revealed from the enquiry report that there is no obstacle in hanging service wire from the pole to complainant’s premises as the hanging of wire does not cover any private plot and the service wire covering plots are the exclusive homestead plot of the complainant.
In the written statement Ops state that complainant illegally shifted his service connection from LT pole situated in front of Kartik Chauli’s house to the LT pole erected near Budhijagulai temple. This pleas of the Ops are difficult to believe, because without the consent/knowledge of the Ops an consumer/individual can not neither install a LT pole nor extend the LT wirings to the newly erected LT Pole. Further the petition dtd.19.10.15 filed by complainant reveals that the said LT pole near Budhijagulai temple is situated over Plot No.2243 which belongs to the complainant, the Xerox copy of ROR submitted to the Ld. Commissioner during enquiry reveals that Plot No.2243 of Khatian No.815 is recorded in the name of the complainant and his father in the written statement Ops have offered an alternative way to provide power supply to the complainant’s premises from another LT pole which requires 50 mts. of A.B. cable and one L.T.Pole. The expenditure for the purpose is to be borne by the complainant, by taking the plea that the LT pole erected near Budhijagulai temple is illegal and Ops are trying to remove the pole. In this regard, we are of the opinion that when a LT pole is already erected near Budhijagulai temple till date as per the report of the Ld.Commissioner, hence it will be more appropriate to provide the service connection to complainant’s premises from the LT pole near Budhijagulai temple, if in future the Ops remove the said LT pole then the extension of alternative way maybe adopted for purpose of service connection to the complainant.
In the situation it is clear that complainant deserves a service connection to avail power supply from the LT pole erected near Budhijagulai temple as no consumer can be denied power supply on filmsy grounds, and the expenditure for service connection is to be borne by the complainant-consumer. That apart, a Misc. Case was filed bearing I.A.No.26-15 where this Forum directed the Ops to restore power supply. But Ops did not comply the order for reasons stated in the objection. Complainant also filed a petition U/S-25 & 27 of C.P.Act,1986. Considering the petition and objection this Forum arrived into a conclusion that dispute will be decided at the time of disposal of original C.C.Case. It appears from the objection that non-compliance of the interim direction by the Ops were not intentional, rather under certain official compulsions Ops could not comply the order of the Forum, accordingly the petition filed U/S-25 and 27 of the complainant-Petitioner is hereby disposed of.
With aforesaid observations, it is directed that within 7(seven) days of receipt of this order Opp.Parties will provide power supply by connecting service wire from L.T.pole situated near Budhijagulai temple, subject to production of required service wires and other accessories by the complainant.
The complaint is allowed in part without cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 29th day of February,2016.
