DATE OF FILING: 18.03.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 25th day of July, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No. 69/2011
Between
Complainant : Sebastian Jacob,
Cherayil House,
Mariyapuram P.O,
Idukki, Idukki District.
(By Adv: Sibi Thomas)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Deputy Chief Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Electrical Circle,
Thodupuzha.
O R D E R
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant is running a metal crusher unit at Mariyapuram which is registered under S.S.I scheme. The complainant established and purchased the machinery by availing bank loan and other private finance from outsides. In order to get electric connection for the plant, he applied under OYEC scheme to the opposite party. An estimate was prepared by the opposite party for the same and an amount of Rs.23,100/- and Rs.9,49,000/- were remitted on 27.03.2008 and 14.10.2008 respectively. After complying all formalities as directed by the opposite parties, they denied to issue the electric connection. So a written representation was given to the Ist opposite party on 12.12.2010, but so far connection was not issued to the complainant. The complainant approaches the opposite parties once in every week after 18.06.2008. Due to long delay in getting the electric connection, he purchased a generator which costs Rs.20 lakhs and he is spending Rs.20,000/- per day for purchasing diesel for running the same. The complainant availed loan of Rs.5 crores from a financial institution and installed the machinery and plant. The delay in getting the electric connection caused huge financial loss to the complainant and so this petition is filed for getting a direction to provide electric connection to the complainant's metal crusher unit and also for compensation and interest for the amount paid by him.
2. As per the written version filed by the 2nd opposite party, it is stated that they have initiated proceedings to grant power supply to the complainant's crusher unit. Meanwhile one Mr.Santhosh and two others filed O.S.26/2010 before the Munisiff Court, Idukki for permanent prohibitory injunction from drawing power line through their properties. So the opposite parties filed a petition before the District Collector, Idukki under Section 16(1) of Indian Telegraph Act for removing obstructions. These two litigations are pending. In the above circumstances the opposite parties could not grant power supply until this time. The opposite parties are always ready and willing to give connection to the complainant. The complainant has began the work at his own risk without getting power supply. He has wilfully suppressed the material facts and the petition is filed as an experimental. Hence it may be dismissed.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.P1 to P4 marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence adduced by the opposite parties. A commissioner was appointed to inspect the disputed property and the commission report is marked as Ext.C1.
5. The POINT : As per PW1, the complainant, in order to start a metal crusher unit under S.S.I scheme, being he is an unemployed youth applied to the opposite parties for getting electric connection under OYEC scheme. An order was passed by the 2nd opposite party as No.AS.4/08-09 on 18.06.2008 and as per the order an estimate was prepared by the opposite party. The complainant paid Rs.23,100/- on 27.03.2008, Rs.9,49,000/- on 14.10.2008 respectively as per the order of the opposite party and the copy of the receipts marked as Exts.P1 and P2. As per the order of Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Thodupuzha, the estimate amount was sanctioned and the sanction order is produced and marked as Ext.P3. The copy of the proceedings of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Thodupuzha is marked as Ext.P4. After paying the huge amount, he approaches the opposite party once in a week for getting the connection and also for enquiring the same. But the opposite party delayed the proceedings and the complainant caused heavy loss because of the same. He availed loan of Rs.5 crores for erecting the machinery and for the plant. The loan amount availed by him is to be repaid in monthly instalments. So he himself purchased a generator worth Rs.20,00,000/- for running the crusher unit. Rs.20,000/- is needed for purchasing diesel per day for the working of the same. As per cross examination of the learned counsel for the opposite party, complainant admitted that a suit was filed by the neighbours before the Munisiff Court, Idukki and it is pending. An application was given to the District Collector, Idukki by the opposite party under Section 16(1) of Indian Telegraph Act, for removing objection in giving consent for drawing electric connection through the adjacent property owners. A commissioner was appointed to inspect the disputed property and the commission report is marked as Ext.C1.
It is admitted by the opposite party that the complainant paid a huge amount, nearly 10 lakhs to the opposite party for sanctioning electric connection under OYEC scheme to his metal crusher unit. Exts.P1 and P2 also shows the same. An estimate was also sanctioned by the 2nd opposite party for drawing electric connection to the metal crusher unit of the complainant, Ext.P3 shows the same. The neighbouring persons such as Santhosh, Sukumaran and Sunumon filed a suit before the Munisiff Court, Idukki for restraining the opposite parties from drawing electric connection through their property and also against passing into the property, cutting and removing any improvement or from drawing electric lines over their property. It is also admitted by the complainant. So the matter has been forwarded to the District Collector, Idukki for further action. But as per the complainant, he paid an amount of nearly 10 lakhs rupees for getting electric connection and waiting for the same from that day onwards. If an order was passed by the Munsiff Court restraining the opposite parties from drawing electric connection, the opposite parties ought to have produced that order before the Forum. Here there is no injunction order produced before the Forum showing that the opposite parties are restrained from drawing electric connection. If a suit has been filed by the adjacent property owners of the complainant against the opposite parties, the opposite party ought to have filed written version or objection in that suit and must have taken immediate steps to dispose the same because they have already received nearly 10 lakhs rupees from the complainant for drawing electric connection.
As per the opposite party, these matters have been referred to the District Collector and now the deciding authority is the District Collector, the opposite parties are always ready and willing to grant power supply if the objections are removed by the District Collector. A commission report has been filed by an advocate commissioner after inspecting the disputed property and as per Ext.C1 commission report, it is stated that electric connection can be drawn through the public road to the crusher unit of the complainant. Further electric posts can be laid in the side of the public road and electric connection can be drawn. Some stay wires have been erected in the property of some neighbouring persons while drawing electric connection through the public road. If new electric connection is drawing through that public road to the crusher unit of the complainant more stays are required including double stays and the stay wires should be erected in the adjacent property owned by some private persons. As per PW2, commissioner, there is no objection for drawing electric connection through the public road and the only inconvenience is that stay wires should be erected in the adjacent property owned by some private persons. Double posts were also erected by the opposite party. It is stated by the opposite party to the commissioner that further stays are needed for erecting these posts to the crusher unit of the complainant. It is also deposed by the commissioner that new posts should be erected in 50 metres of distance in order to draw electric connection to the complainant's crusher unit. So the only objection is erecting the stay wires of the electric posts to the property of the private persons. The property crossing is not needed for drawing electric connection to the crusher unit of the complainant as per Ext.C1 commission report and PW2. As per the complainant, the opposite party can draw electric connection by fixing electric posts by concreting the ground portion without the help of the stay wires. The opposite party never filed any objection before the Munisiff Court regarding the suit filed by the adjacent property owners.
So we think that the complainant already paid nearly 10 lakhs rupees to the opposite party for getting electric connection to his metal crusher unit and it is paid as per the order and estimate prepared by the opposite party. Also as per the assurance of the opposite party to supply electricity. Being an unemployed youth, he availed a loan of Rs.5 crores from a financial institution for starting the metal crusher unit. He has to repay the loan amount in monthly instalments. So he started the unit with the help of a generator which costs Rs.20,00,000/- and he is paying Rs.20,000/- for purchasing diesel for running the unit. The act of the opposite parties caused heavy loss to the complainant. These matters are not at all challenged by the opposite parties in anywherelse. The only objection raised by the opposite party is that a suit has been filed by the adjacent property owners against the opposite party for drawing the electric connection. But there is no stay order or injunction order has been produced by the opposite party to show that the electric connection has been restrained by them. If a suit has been filed by the adjacent property owners, the opposite parties ought to have filed objection before that court because they already received nearly 10 lakhs rupees from the complainant for providing OYEC connection. Here there is no evidence produced by the opposite party to show that they have filed written version. Their part has been fulfilled only by filing a petition before the District Collector, Idukki. It is not at all proper and it is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite party. The opposite parties are drawing 11 KV electric connection without stay wires in town areas where there is no space for erecting stay wires for the posts after concreting the ground. Here there is only 50 metres distance is left for drawing electric connection by erecting electric posts and the opposite parties can draw 11 KV line without irrecting stay wires after concreting the floor. If any excess amount is needed for the same that can be received from the complainant. The complainant never produced any evidence to show that he caused heavy loss because of the non-availability of the electric connection and also to show that he is paying Rs.20,000/- per day for purchasing diesel for the metal crusher unit because of the same.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to provide electric connection to the complainant's metal crusher unit within one month of receipt of a copy of this order. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- per day as compensation to the complainant if any delay has been caused after the same and Rs.1,000/- as costs to the complainant within 30 days, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 25th day of July, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
PW1 - Sebastian.C.Jacob
PW2 - M.M.Lissy
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Nil
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1 - Photocopy of Receipt dated 27/03/2008 for Rs.23,100/-
Ext.P2 - Photocopy of Receipt dated 14/10/2008 for Rs.9,49,000/-
Ext.P3 - Photocopy of Sanction Order No.AS.4/08-09 dated 18.06.2008 issued by the 2nd opposite party
Ext.P4 - Photocopy of Proceedings of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Thodupuzha dated 27.03.2008
Ext.C1 - Commission Report
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Nil
