CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No.36/11
Saturday the 26th day of November, 2011
Petitioner : M.K. Sreenivasan,
Melatharayil,
Karappuzha PO, Kottayam-3.
Vs.
Opposite party : Asst.Engineer,
Electrical Section,
Kottayam Central.
ORDER
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant presented on 8-2-11 is as follows.
He had made representation before the opposite party for replace of electric post and electric line from the premises of the complainant to near side of a path way. The complainant approached the opposite party on several occasions for replace the electric line and post. The opposite party had prepared the estimate and costs of the work of for shifting of the line and post. The complainant had remitted an amount of Rs.3561/- on 2/8/08 on the basis of the estimate prepared by the opposite party. There after on 17/5/10 complainant on the basis of the receipt No.73321, material and labour charges of Rs.4922/- was remitted. But the opposite party did not do any steps to replace the electric post and electric line. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint.
The notice was served with the opposite party. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The Secretary, K.S.E.B is not a party in this proceeding. The complainant had applied for replace of L.T line from the premises of the complainant to a near side of the pathway on 26-9-2008. On the basis of the representation made by the complainant the opposite party had prepared the estimate and labour charges as Rs.3561/-and he had remitted the same. There after the complainant has not turned up. After two years of the above said remittance the complainant approached the opposite party again. Then the opposite party prepared the revised estimate and labour charges of Rs.4922/-. Thus the complainant had remitted the revised amount of Rs.4922/- on 17/5/2010. On the basis of the revised estimate the opposite party and their men came to the premises of the complainant. On 6/10/2010 the opposite party was ready and willing to do the work of the complainant. Due the adamant stand taken by the complainant the opposite party had not do the work. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts. A1 &A2(a) A The opposite party filed proof affidavit and document which is marked as Ext.B1.
Heard both sides. We have gone through the complaint, version, documents and evidences of both sides. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party has not do anything for replace of electric post and electric line from the middle of the premises of petitioner to the side of the premises of the complainant even after remitting the estimated amount before the opposite party. According to him the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. The opposite party has taken a contention that the replacement was not effected only due to negligent act of the complainant.
According to the opposite party the complainant was very particular to replace the post from the middle of the premises to the path way. But the path way was only 5 feet width. Hence the post was replaced the new side of the complainants premises. The opposite party was ready and willing to replace the post and line near the side of the premises. The complainant has not adduced any evidence to show that shifting of the post into the road will not cause any obstruction in the road. Hence we can not direct opposite party to shift the electric post into a nearby road.
However the complainant had already remitted the estimated amount before the opposite party for shifting the post and line to the near side of his premises. So we are of the opinion that the post and line are to be shifted to the side of the premises without causing obstruction to the path way.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. 1) We direct the opposite party to replace the post and line to the near side of the premises, if the complainant desires so. But it is directed not to place the post in the path way causing obstruction to others. In this circumstance both parties will suffer their respective costs. It is not possible the opposite party will refund the remitted amount to the complainant.
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member Sd/-
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/-
Appendix
Documents produced by complainant
Ext.A1-is the copy of ID card
Ext.A2-series is the copy of letters received from op by RT Act.
Document produced by OP
Ext.B1 is the copy of mass petition
By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
