KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.361/04
JUDGMENT DATED.27.06.08
PRESENT:-
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
1. The Secretary, K.S.E.B.,
Pattom, Trivandrum.
2. The Asst.Exe.Engineer, : APPELLANTS
K.S.E.B., Velloor.
3. The Asst.Engineer,
K.S.E.B., Chemboor, Vaikom.
(By Adv.B.Sakthidharan Nair)
Vs
Sandeep.R,
Kanjirackappallil, Vadakkemuri, : RESPONDENT
Vaikkom, Kottayam.
(By Adv.T.L.Sreeram)
JUDGMENT
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR: MEMBER
The opposite parties are the appellants herein who are under orders to give electric connection to the complainant with compensation of Rs.2500/- and cost of Rs.500/- as per order dated 25th February 2004 in OP.No.273/03 of CDRF, Kottayam.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he had applied for an electric connection to his premises where his aged grand mother was residing with him who had 60% vision disability. It is his case that the opposite party agreed to give free connection if he was entitled to get it. He was further informed that if he was not eligible for the same his application would be treated as normal application. The complainant completed the wiring works and informed the same to the opposite parties as back in September, 2000. The opposite parties kept quiet for a long time till 25.4.2003 on which date the complainant was informed that he was not entitled to get free connection. The complainant was asked to apply under OYEC scheme and the complainant was agreeable for the same. It is his case that even after that the opposite parties did not take any steps to give electric connection to the complainant and alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, the complaint was filed praying for directions to the opposite parties to provide electric connection to the complainant and also for compensation and costs.
3. The opposite parties in their version contended that for giving service connection overhead line had to be drawn through the property of Smt.Leelamma Joseph and as she was not willing to give consent, Statutory notice was given by the second opposite party to the property owner on 31.7.03 for filing petition before the Distric Magistrate. It is also his case that Smt.Leelamma Joseph had objected the drawing of the line through her property and the opposite parties were also informed that a case was pending before the Hon’ble High Court as OP.No.22871/99-W. In such a situation they did not file the petition before the District Collector and it was submitted before the forum below that under section 16(1) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1985 read with Section 51 of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910, the petition was prepared for filing before the District Collector to remove the objection raised by the Smt.Leelamma Joseph and hence there was no deficiency of service and they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. The evidence consisted of the affidavit filed by the complainant the second opposite party, Ext.A1 to A3 and Exts.B1 to B4.
5.We heard the counsel for the appellants and the respondent.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted the case of the appellants based on the contentions taken in the version and the grounds urged in the memorandum of the present appeal. It is his very case that the forum ought to have dismissed the complaint finding that the complainant is not a consumer and that the connection could not be given due to non production of the consent of the owner of the property through which the line had to be drawn for giving connection. It is also submitted that the forum had gone wrong in finding that the opposite party had sat over the petition for a long time from the year 2000 to the year of 2003. It is also his case that the forum had erred in finding that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and he prayed for the dismissal of the complaint in toto.
7. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings and conclusions of the forum below. He submitted before us that the opposite parties were negligent and deficient in taking an action on the application that was given by the complainant in 2000 for nearly 3 years. Even though the complainant was repeatedly requesting the opposite parties to give connection, it was only in 2003 that the complainant was informed that he was not eligible to get the connection on the basis of his application. Even though he was ready to take connection under the OYEC scheme, then also the opposite parties took no effective action at any point of time till the filing of the complaint before the forum. He vehemently submitted before us that the alternative route proposed by the complainant was not even considered by the opposite parties and instead of giving connection through the feasible route, the opposite parties were insisting to give connection through the property of Smt.Leelamma Joseph who had raised strong objection. He invited our attention to the fact that the Deputy Collector & District Magistrate, Kottayam had ordered the opposite parties to draw the line to the residence of the complainant through the route proposed by the complainant himself ie; the path way leading to his house from the main road and in such a circumstance it is his case that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and argued for dismissal of the appeal with costs.
8. On hearing the counsel for the appellants and respondent and on going through the records we find that the opposite parties had not taken any action till the filing of the complaint before the forum. Though they would argue that Sri.Leelamma Joseph was informed vide letter dated.31.7.03, it is to be noted that when the application was received, the opposite parties ought to have informed the applicant whether his case can be considered or not, if there are any impediments for giving connection. It is the duty of the opposite parties to inform the complainant for clearing the obstructions if any. In the instant case it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the connection could not be given because one Smt.Leelamma Joseph stood in the way who did not give consent for drawing the line. If the line was to be drawn through the property of the Smt.Lellamma Joseph, the said fact should have been informed to the complainant and asked him to produce the consent letter from the said Smt.Leelamma Joseph. On a perusal of the records we find no documents to show that any information was given to the complainant asking him to produce the consent of Smt.Leelamma Joseph. The contention of the complainant/respondent that connection could have been given through the path way suggested by him is fortified by the fact that the Deputy Collector had also ordered for drawing the line through the route proposed by the complainant. It is also to be noted that the application was given in 2000 and immediately on getting the application the opposite parties should have informed him that he would not be eligible to get free connection. It is argued by the appellants that the application for getting connection under OYEC scheme was given only on 21.6.03. This contention of the opposite parties could have been accepted if the application for electricity connection was given only in 2003 and not in 2000. It is found that the complainant had submitted his application in 2000 and for giving an information regarding the non eligibility, the opposite parties had taken almost 3 years which is clear deficiency of service and in such a situation the order of the forum below directing the opposite parties to take immediate steps to give electric connection to the complainant along with compensation and cost calls for no interference by this commission.
In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated.25.2.04 in OP.273/03 of CDRF, Kottayam. In the nature and circumstances of the case the parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
SRI.S.CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER
R.AV
