KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:279/03 & A.544/03 JUDGMENT DATED:20..10..2008. PRESENT SRI.M.V.. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI..S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER APPEAL NO:279/2003 1.Kerala State Electricity Board, Repd. by the Executive Engineer, Divisional Office, Attingal. 2.Prabhakaran Nair, Assistant Engineer, : APPELLANTS Electrical Major Section, Attingal. 3.Shahul Hameed, Assistant Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Attingal. (By Adv: Sri.Shaji Chellappan) V. 1.Balakrishnan, S/o Velayudhan, Velayudha Nilayam, Thittakkadu, Chathanpara, : RESPONDENTS Karavaram Village. 2.Sathii Balakrishnan, W/o Balakrishnan, -do- -do- (BY Adv: Sri.Mohammed Muhazin) APPEAL NO:544/2003. 1.Balakrishnan, S/o Velayudhan, Velayudha Nilayam, Thottakkadu, Chathanpura, Karavaram Village. : APPELLANTS 2.Sathi Balakrishnan, W/o Balakrishnan, residing at –do- -do- (By Adv: Sri.Mohammed Mohazin) V. 1.Kerala State Electricity Board, Repd. by the Executive Engineer, Divisional Office, Attingal. 2.Prabhakaran Nair, Assistant Engineer, : RESPONDENTS Electrical Major Section, Attingal. 3.Shahul Hameed, Assistant Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Attingal. (By Adv: Sri.Shaji Chellappan) COMMON JUDGMENT SHRI.M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeals are preferred from the order dated:10..2..2003 of the CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP:475/98. The complaint therein was filed by the respondent in Appeal:279/03 (the appellant in appeal:544/03) for getting agricultural connection to his agricultural land and also for compensation for the damage caused to the peppervine, betelvine, plantain etc. The complainant claimed a compensation of Rs.3,33,200/-. The opposite parties (KSEB) (appellant in A.279/03 and Respondent in A.544/03) contended that there was no deficiency of service on their part in giving agricultural connection to the agricultural property of the complainant, but the complainant was not amenable for cutting and removing the trees standing in his property. They also denied the case of damage caused to the agricultural produce of the complainant. The Forum below on an appreciation of the evidence on record came to the conclusion that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Thereby passed the impugned order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the complainant with future interest at the rate of 14.5%. The Forum below has also directed the opposite parties to give electric connection to the complainant through the eastern side of the complainant’s property within two months. Aggrieved by the said order the opposite party/KSEB preferred Appeal:279/03. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation ordered by the Forum below the complainant preferred the Appeal:544/03. 2. We heard both sides. The learned counsel for the appellant in A.279/03 submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the Memorandum of Appeal in A.279/03. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainant (Appellant in A.544/03) submitted his arguments based on the grounds urged in the said appeal. The counsel for the KSEB expressed the readiness of the KSEB in giving agricultural connection to the agricultural property of the complainant/consumer provided the complainant is ready to remove one teak tree and one coconut tree which are lying on the proposed electric line. At the same time the definite case of the complainant is that he was always ready to remove the trees which were obstructing drawing of the line, but the then Engineer of the KSEB who was on enemical terms with the complainant was not prepared to give the electric connection by raising some ground or other. 3. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Is there occurred any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties (KSEB) in giving agricultural connection to the agricultural property of the complainant/consumer ? 2. Whether the complainant has sustained any agriculture loss due to the failure on the part of the opposite party/KSEB in giving agricultural connection to the agricultural property of the complainant. If so, what is the quantum? 3. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Forum below in OP:475/98? 4. POINTS 1 to 3:- For the sake of convenience we will refer the parties to these appeals according to their status before the Forum below in OP:475/98. 5. There is no dispute that the 2nd complainant through her husband the 1st complainant approached the opposite parties for getting connection to the agricultural property owned by the 2nd complainant. It is admitted by both sides that there was some objection raised by the adjacent property owner in drawing the electric connection and thereby the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Attingal (2nd opposite party) approached the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram to get an order under Sec.16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, to get the obstruction removed. Thereby the District Collector/District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram passed the order dated:25..1..2000 and thereby the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Attingal was given sanction to draw the line as per the revised proposal as described in the said order. It was also directed for cutting and removing the trees which would be necessary to clear line for the purpose of drawing the electric line. It is after the said order the Forum below passed the impugned order dated:10..2..2003. The Forum below has also considered the existing order passed by the District Collector/District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram and thereby directed the opposite party/KSEB to give electric connection to the complainant through the eastern side of the complainant’s property within two months. It is to be noted that the said order was passed on 10..2..2003 but so far as the opposite party/KSEB failed to comply with the said order passed by the Forum below. The attitude of the KSEB officials in giving the electric connection to the agricultural property of the complainants has been considered by the Forum below and came to the conclusion that the officials of the KSEB were adopting the Hide and Seek policy and they were very much interested in not giving the electric connection to the agricultural property of the complainants on some pretext or other. The subsequent inaction or omission on the part of the officials of KSEB would also make it clear that they were not very much interested in complying with the order passed by the Forum below. We do not find any illegality or patent irregularity in the order passed by the Forum below directing the opposite parties to give electric connection to the agricultural property of the complainant. The said direction was given by taking into consideration the order dated:25..1..2000 passed by the District Collector/District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. 6. There is nothing on record to show that the complainants were not prepared to cut and remove the trees standing on the property for clearing the way for giving the electric connection. The 1st complainant who is present today before this commission has even agreed for making a further payment of Rs.1000/- to the KSEB for shifting one electric post which has been erected by the KSEB. He has also expressed his readiness to cut and remove the tree or any other tree standing in the property in order to get the electric connection to the agricultural property of the complainants. So the attitude shown by the 1st complainant would make it clear that he was always ready and willing to do the necessary things to get electric connection to his agricultural property. So the impugned order passed by the Forum below directing the opposite party/KSEB to give connection to the agricultural property of the complainants is to be upheld. Hence we do so. 7. The complaint in OP:475/98 was filed 10 years back and the District Collector/District Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram passed an order on 25..1..2000. Thereby sanction was accorded to KSEB to draw the line as per the revised proposal submitted by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Attingal. But so far as the electric connection is not been given to the agricultural property of the complainants. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the KSEB and the present Executive Engineer, Mr.Rajendrakumar.K.M. that line has been drawn through the property of the complainant but service connection has not been drawn given. It is also submitted that even though line has been drawn it has not been charged. Thus, in effect the complainants are not in a position to use the electrical energy for drawing water to their agricultural property. The present Assistant Executive Engineer has expressed his readiness to give connection to the property of the complainants somehow or other and he is also prepared to shift the already erected electric post to a convenient place so as to avoid least inconvenience to the complainant. Thus, it can be concluded that there was deficiency of service on the part of the KSEB in giving actual and effective electric connection to the agricultural property of the complainants. 8. The Forum below awarded a compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the agricultural loss suffered by the complainants. It is to be noted that a commission was taken and the commissioner has reported about the loss suffered by the complainant due to the failure to water the agricultural plants like peppervine, betelvine, plantain etc and the commissioner assessed the loss at Rs.75,800/- per year. But the Forum below allowed the compensation at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per year for a period of two years thereby the compensation was fixed at Rs.30,000/-. The fact that the complainant suffered loss due to the deficiency of service on the part of the KSEB can be accepted to a greater extent. But at the same time, there was some negligence or lapse on the part of the complainants in planting peppervines and betelvines and developed other crops without getting agricultural connection. It was incumbent upon the complainants to get the electricity connection first and thereafter to develop the crops. Of course, there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in giving agricultural connection, even after passing the order by the District Collector. It can very safely be concluded that the complainants were not in a position to develop crops in their agricultural property because of lack of water facility. The aforesaid lack of water facility resulted in only because of the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. So, we are of the view that the complainants are to be compensated in terms of money. The compensation of Rs.30,000/- ordered by the Forum below is on the higher side. We reduce the said compensation to Rs.15,000/-. The said amount will carry interest at the rate of 14.5% from the date of the order of this commission. The cost ordered by the Forum below can be treated as just and reasonable. The impugned order is modified to that extent. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the Appeal:279/03 is allowed partly thereby the impugned order dated:10..2..2003 passed by CDRF, Thiruvananthapuram in OP:475/98 is modified. The opposite parties in the complaint are directed to give electric connection to the agricultural property of the complainants forthwith and the order passed by the Forum below to that effect is confirmed. The compensation of Rs.30,000/- ordered by the Forum below is reduced to Rs.15,000/-. The said amount will carry interest at the rate of 14.5% from the date of the order of this commission. The cost of Rs.2000/- ordered by the Forum below infavour of the complainants is confirmed. Appeal:544/03 preferred by the complainant in OP:475/98 is dismissed. As far as the present appeals are concerned, the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER S. CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER VL. | 
