DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM PALAKKAD Dated this the 31st day of March 2010 .
Present : Smt. H. Seena, President : Smt. Preetha G. Nair, Member : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
C.C.No.80/2009
Krishnankutty Pullayil veedu Karakkurussi Mannarkkad Palakkad. - Complainant. (Party in person) V/s The Asst. Executive Engineer Kerala State Electricity Board Mannarkkad Palakkad. - Opposite party (Adv.L. Namassivayan ) O R D E R By Smt. Seena.H, President Complaint in brief:
Complainant is a prospective consumer of opposite party. He applied for electricity connection depositing caution deposit of Rs.952/- on 01/12/2007.According to the complainant many persons who has applied for connection after the complainant has been given connection by the opposite party. Complainant has not so far been provided with the electricity connection. Hence complaint filed for directing the opposite party to provide electricity connection and pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony and cost of the proceedings.
The contention of the opposite party is as follows.
It is true that complainant has deposited the Caution Deposit for availing electricity connection. Opposite party was always ready to provide connection. But it was not materialized due to objection from the owner of the land through which the line has to be - 2 - drawn. Thereafter opposite party filed a complaint before the Additional District Magistrate U/s 16(1) of Indian Telegraph Act and Section 29(2) of Criminal Procedure Code praying to remove the obstruction raised by Smt. Lakshmi, who is the land owner through whose land connection has to be drawn. As per the order of the Additional District Magistrate, line was drawn through the land of Smt. Lakshmi and connection was given to the complainant on 29/09/2009. According to opposite party, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
The evidence adduced by the complainant and opposite party consists of their respective affidavits. Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the complainant. Exhibits B1 to B3 marked on the side of opposite party.
Now the issues for consideration are: Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party? If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to?
Issues 1 & 2 The definite case of the complainant is that opposite party's has provided electricity connection to other consumers over riding the seniority of the complainant. Opposite party on the other hand contended that connection could not be provided due to the objection from the land owner through which the line has to be drawn. Subsequently, as per the order of the Additional District Magistrate, connection was provided to the complainant.
Heard both parties. It is true that during the pendency of the proceedings before the forum, connection was provided as per the order of the Additional District Magistrate. Order is marked as Exhibit B3.
As per Exhibit B1, letter of the complainant addressed to the opposite party, complainant himself admitted that Smt. Lakshmi obstructed the work of Kerala State Electricity Board. When such situation arise, it is the legal duty of opposite party to approach the Additional District Magistrate, for removing obstruction. That has been done by opposite party. Exhibit B2 is the petition filed by opposite party on 20/11/2008 before - 3 - Additional District Magistrate. Additional District Magistrate has ordered vide order dated 16/09/2009 to provide connection through the disputed land itself. Order is marked as Exhibit B3. Accordingly connection was also granted on 29/09/2009 as admitted by both parties. Complainant produced Exhibit A1 series which is the receipt for deposit of caution deposit. Exhibit A3 letter has no relevance in this case because it is no way connected with the present case. It is a letter issued by the complainant to opposite party objecting to draw line through his land in an earlier issue in the year 2006.
On going through the records we are of the view that delay in providing electricity connection for complying procedural formalities does not amounts to deficiency in service. In the result, complaint dismissed. No order as to cost
Pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of March 2010. PRESIDENT (SD)
MEMBER (SD) MEMBER (SD)
APPENDIX Witness examined on the side of Complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of Opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant Ext. A1 series – Bills of Kerala State Electricity Board Ext. A2 – Possession certificate dated 18/07/06
3. Ext. A3 - Copy of letter dated 16/05/2006
- 4 - Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party 1. Ext. B1 – Copy of letter addressed to Asst. Engineer 2. Ext. B2 – Copy of petition addressed to Additional District Magistrate 3. Ext. B3 - Oder of Additional District Magistrate dated 16/09/2009. Forums Exhibits Nil Forwarded/By Order
| | HONORABLE Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member | HONORABLE Smt.Seena.H, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member | | 
