Orissa

Jajapur

CC/89/2018

Smt. Gouri Priya Debi. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer,NESCO Utility Jajpur Electrical Division. - Opp.Party(s)

Ramaknata Ghadei,Santosh Ku. Samal

11 Sep 2019

ORDER

 IN  THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JAJPUR.

                                                        Present:      1.Shri Jiban ballav Das , President

                                                                            2.Sri Pitabas Mohanty, Member,

                                                                            3.Miss Smita Ray, Lady Member.                                                                   

                                             Dated the 11 th day of  September,2019.

                                                      C.C.Case No. 89  of 2018

Smt. Gouripriya Debi,

W/O Dr.Surandranath Sathpathy   

At . Rajpur ,  P.O. Jajpur  

Dist. Jajpur  

                                                                                                                  ……....Complainant .                                                                                                   

                                                  (Versus)

1.Executive Engineer NESCO Utility,Jajpur Electrical Divn. At.Rani-

Ramachandrapur near Kabar khana chhak Govt. Medical Road,

P.O/ Dist. Jajpur.

2.S.D.O, no.1,NESCO Utility ,Jajpur Electrical sub-division, At. Kalimegha

P.O/Dt. Jajpur.

3.Jr. Engineer no.1, NESCO utility,Jajpur Electrical Sub-division,

At. Kalimegha, P.O/Dt. Jajpur.

                                                                                                                              ……………..Opp.Parties.                 

                                                                                                                           

For the Complainant:                              Sri R.K. Ghadei,  Shri S.K.Samal, Advocates  .

For the Opp.Parties :                                Sri P.K.Daspattnaik, Advocate.  

                                                                                                     Date of order:  11 .09. 2019.

SHIR   JIBAN   BALLAV  DAS ,  PRESIDENT .

The petitioner has filed the present dispute against the O.ps alleging deficiency in service.

            The facts as stated by the petitioner in her complaint petition shortly are that the petitioner being an in habitant of Rajpur Dist.Jajpur has purchased thatched house in mouza Rajpur which is within the area of Jajpur Muncipality  having holding No. 214 . The O.ps have also provided power supply to the thatched house bearing consumer No.6212117 – 8478 . At the time of repairing the purchased thatched house to building ,it is observed that the O.ps have installed a stay wire of the running electric line on the outside drain of the thatched house with concrete and cement  and such installation of stay is without the knowledge of the petitioner . It is alleged by the petitioner that due to installation of such stay in the drain the unused water of the thatched house / building has been blocked and unless the stay is removed the blocked used water will damage  the western side wall of the building. Further it is alleged by the petitioner after several request as the O.Ps remained silent the petitioner  though served the legal notice to the O.Ps on 29.10.18  but to no result. Accordingly finding no other way the petitioner has filed the present dispute alleging deficiency in service as well as has prayed to direct the O.Ps  either to remove or shift the stay from the drain of the petitioner so as to enable the petitioner to construct the drain for passing the un used water  passing from the purchased thatched house converted to building.

            The O.Ps after appearance have filed the written version taking the stand  that though it is admitted fact that the she is a consumer of NESCO utility but  as regards the grievance of the petitioner that the O.ps have blocked the drainage water of her own house by putting a stay on the western side of her boundary wall without the knowledge of the petitioner though are not within the  ambit of the Hon’ble Forum but,  it is the fact that village Rajpur ,word No.2 have been                   electrified prior to complainant’s purchase of the thatched house  in the said mouza  word no.2 of jajpur municipality. According to O.Ps before electrification as per statutory provision the State Govt and Municipality are to approve the matter ,  after approval the matter rest with the local bodies for right of way . As per allocation of right of way by the local bodies the electricity department installed the pole and stay for supply of power to the locality . In no circumstances electricity Department put poles without approval of municipality. Further if any circumstances the stay will be removed from the electric pole then there must be disruption of power supply  to the locality. Hence the petitioner is to provide alternative and  suitable place for the installation of the stay and the cost of entire replacement  must be borne by her subject to approval of the same from the higher  competent authority .

            On the date of hearing we heard the argument of both the parties. After perusal of the record in details it is observed that though the petitioner has stated in the complaint petition that the O.ps have installed a stay without the knowledge of the petitioner but the O.Ps in the written version have stated that the pole and stay have been installed prior to purchase the thatched house by the petitioner .  Further it is stated by the petitioner that due to blockage of the drainage water owing to installation of stay the petitioner served legal notice to the O.ps after several verbal request but the O.Ps  after receipt of the legal notice remained silent. Accordingly we are inclined to  hold that   “non reply” of legal notice way draw adverse inference “  in view of the observation of Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2013 (1) CPR-456-N.C ( MS Reeta Vrs. Sikandar Singh)

             In addition to it the petitioner also has relied on a citation reported in III (2006) CPJ-39-of Harryana State Commission – ( HUDA  & Ors Vrs S K Wason ) wherein it is held that

“Electric pole with high tension wire located in middle of the plot not removed by O.P –complainant- could not carry out construction of Industrial unit – Deficiency in service proved –complaint-allowed by Forum –order upheld in appeal “.

In the present case the petitioner alleges that due to installation of stay the drainage water has been blocked and  such drainage water on the western side wall will be damage .As such without drawing any adverse inference we allow the dispute as per order below.

                                                              O R D E R

            The dispute is allowed against the O.Ps. The O.Ps are directed to remove the stay from the drain of the petitioner building  within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order without charging the shifting charge as per observation of Gujurat State Commission reported in 2005(1) CPR-66-Gujurat  Deputy Engineering Gujurat Electricity Board Vrs. Dr. Vidilal Tarachand Kothari  wherein it is held that

“Rule provided that opponent has to provide over head service lines free of cost up to 30 meters from nearest distributing main line .”  No cost .  

This order is pronounced in the open Forum on this the 11th   day of  September,2019. under my hand and seal of the Forum.