DATE OF FILING : 5.2.2016
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 30th day of March, 2017
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO.39/2016
Between
Complainant : Leel P.U., W/o. Joseph T.V.,
Thekkel House,
Muthalakkodam P.O.,
Thodupuzha, Idukki.
(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Assistant Engineer,
KSEB, Section II, Thodupuzha,
Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki.
2. The Executive Engineer,
KSEB, Section II, Thodupuzha,
Thodupuzha P.O., Idukki.
3. The Secretary,
KSEB, Vydyuthi Bhavan,
Pattam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.
(All by Adv: Lissy M.M.)
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complainant is the owner of a house situated near Nursing College, Muthalakkodam-Undaplave public road. She purchased this house from one Seenath, Aranjal house, Thodupuzha. Along with her family, the complainant is residing in a nearby house and the purchased house is rented out to some one. The electric connection of this house is in the name of the previous owner.
While so, in the month of October, 2015, one Ummar, the neighbouring property owner, cut down a branch of a tree situated in his property and unfortunately, the branch fell on to the service wire of the complainant's house. As a result of which, the electric connection got disconnected and the meter box and meter fell down and was damaged.
(cont....2)
- 2 -
Immediately, the complainant intimated the matter to the 1st opposite party and requested to reinstate the electric connection, since the tenants are residing there. But the 1st opposite party paid no heed to it. Since there was no response, the complainant approached the opposite parties directly and through telephone several times to reinstate the electric connection, but opposite parties have not turned up. Thereafter on 27.10.2015, the complainant filed a written complaint to the 1st opposite party. After a long gap of 1 1/2 months, that is on 10.12.2015, the opposite parties affixed a demand notice on the house demanding to pay an amount of Rs.839/- towards damage caused to the electric meter.
Complainant replied to the demand saying if any damage is caused to the electricity board, they have to realise it from the concerned person who caused the mischief and his name and details have been already intimated to the opposite parties by the complainant. But at the same time, the electricity board authority reinstated the electric connection of the alleged Ummar on the next day of the incident itself. Opposite parties have wilfully neglected the request of the complainant and delayed to reinstate the electric connection of the complainant unlawfully. Due to the act of the opposite party, the tenants vacated the house there by the causing loss to the complainant that is 3 months rent at the rate of Rs.3500/- per month. Eventhough the complainant gave a written request for reconnecting the electric supply in time, the opposite parties have failed to do so and delayed the matter for more than 3 months intentionally and wilfully. This act of the opposite parties warranted severe deficiency in service and the complainant filed this petition for granting the relief so as to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.10500/- as damages and Rs.10000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.3000/- as litigation cost.
On notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed version. In their version, opposite parties contended that the complainant is not a consumer and hence the complaint is not maintainable and the consumer number alleged in the complaint is in the name of one Seenath. The opposite parties further contended that the case originated during the month of October, 2015, due to the cutting of a tree by one Ummar. But he is not made a party in this complaint. Hence the complaint is bad for
(cont....3)
- 3 -
misjoinder of necessary parties. This complaint was received under complaint docket number 158 of the complaint register of the office of opposite parties only on 7.12.2015. On the same day itself the break down wing of the opposite parties attended the complaint and found that the service wire and meter got damaged. Hence to avoid any dangerous situation, the supply was isolated. When there is a failure in supply, the consumer has to record the complaint in complaint register. But in this case, the complaint was registered only on 7.12.2015. As per complaint No.158 immediate action was taken to rectify the complaint. In this context, as per Regulation 22(1) and (2) of Kerala State Electricity Supply Code 2014, in the event of any damage caused to any equipment of the licencee within the premises of the consumer by reason of any act, neglect or default of the consumer or his employee or any person acting on his behalf, the residual cost as claimed by the licensee, based on the guidelines approved by the Kerala State Regulation Commission, shall be paid by the consumer. As such, after preparing the site mahazar, a demand notice amounting to Rs.839/- was issued to the complainant. Without remitting the loss sustained to the board, the complainant approached the opposite parties for reinstating the electric supply. Hence for helping the complainant, a policy case was registered on 18.12.2015. The supply was re-effected after replacing the meter and service wire on 19.12.2015 in anticipation of realising the loss from the said Ummar. Opposite parties further submitted that there is no wilful negligence or latches on the part of opposite parties in considering this matter and there is no deficiency in service on their part. The opposite parties are not responsible for the loss if any caused to the complainant.
The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.P1 to P6 were marked. Ext.P1 is the electricity bill dated 8.11.2013. Ext.P2 is the copy of petition dated 27.10.2015 submitted by the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Ext.P3 is the copy of petition submitted before the Deputy Chief Engineer by the complainant dated 10.12.2015 and Ext.P4 is the copy of petition submitted before the Deputy Chief Engineer by the complainant on 19.12.2015. Ext.P5 is the demand notice dated 11.12.2015. Ext.P6 is the receipt dated 19.12.2015. From the defence side, 2nd opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts.R1 to R6 marked. Ext.R1 is the complaint register page No.80. Ext.R2 is the site mahazar
(cont....4)
- 4 -
dated 10.12.2015. Ext.R3 is the demand notice dated 11.12.2015. Ext.R4 is the copy of complaint to the police. Ext.R5 is the copy of page No.10 of Supply Code. Ext.R6 is the complaint register page No.183.
The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
The POINT :- We have carefully considered the rival contentions and gone through the exhibits and depositions. As per the complaint and affidavit, we can see that the actual date of incident pointed out in the complaint was October, 2015, but no date was specifically stated. But while going through the Ext.P2, it is seen that the petition is submitted by the complainant to the 1st opposite party on 27.10.2015 for re-effecting her electric connection. At the same time opposite parties denied this argument of the complainant by sticking on Ext.R1 complaint register book. As per page No.80 of the complaint register book, we can see that the complaint was registered only on 7.12.2015 as docket No.158. But in this column on details of complaint, it is recorded as “kÀÆokv hbÀ apdnªv hoWn«v 2 amkt¯mfambn. 27.10.2015þÂ ]cmXn tcJmaqew AEþ¡v sImSp¯ncp¶p.” By connecting the entry to other exhibits, produced by the complainant, it is obvious that, the complainant approached the opposite parties so many times from 27.10.2015 onwards. This fact cannot be denied by the opposite parties. Even if we admit the version of opposite parties that they got information only on 7.12.2015, the question that arises for consideration is whether they reinstated the power connection forthwith. From the records produced by the defence and depositions, it is revealed that the electric connection to the alleged building was reinstated only on 19.12.2015, that is after a long delay of 12 days. The justification put forward by the opposite parties in causing the delay of reinstating the power supply is not admissible, since the complainant brought the same to their knowledge and specifically intimated them about the person who committed the mischief. By comparing the entry in Ext.R1 and Ext.P2 copy of petition dated 27.10.2015, we came to a conclusion that the person who prepared the complaint and the person who put the entry in the complaint register are one and same and from the entry of the Ext.R2, we can see that as a last
(cont....5)
- 5 -
resort the person put the complaint in the complaint book also after a long struggle for electric connection by other means. In this case, it is an admitted fact that the damage caused to the meter box and service wire were due to the act of one Ummar and the opposite party filed a petition before the concerned police against the person for getting damages and hence the relevant section of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code is not applicable to the complaint as stated in the written version.
It is clear from the above said facts that the electric connection was reinstated to the complainant's house after a long delay and after the complainant approached the opposite parties so many times through various petitions. From the evidence adduced we can see that the complainant suffered a lot for reinstating the electric connection and that too when the damage caused is not due to any fault from her side. Despite several requests through personal visit, telephone message and written request from the complainant, the opposite parties failed to deliver their service to the complainant in time. Hence the act of the opposite parties are sheer deficiency in service and the complainant has to be adequately compensated. At the same time, complainant has not produced any evidence to convince the Forum that whether she lost 3 months rent at rate of Rs.3500/- per month.
Foregoing reasons, the complaint allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- as compensation for the physical and mental sufferings caused to the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.2000/- as litigation cost, within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry 12% interest per annum from the date of default.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of March, 2017
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER
(cont.... )
- 6 -
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Joseph T.V.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
DW1 - Jumaila Beevi.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - electricity bill dated 8.11.2013.
Ext.P2 - copy of petition dated 27.10.2015 submitted
by the complainant to the 1st opposite party.
Ext.P3 - copy of petition submitted before the Deputy Chief Engineer
by the complainant dated 10.12.2015
Ext.P4 - copy of petition submitted before the Deputy Chief Engineer
by the complainant on 19.12.2015.
Ext.P5 - demand notice dated 11.12.2015.
Ext.P6 - receipt dated 19.12.2015.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1 - complaint register page No.80.
Ext.R2 - site mahazar dated 10.12.2015.
Ext.R3 - demand notice dated 11.12.2015.
Ext.R4 - copy of complaint to the police.
Ext.R5 - copy of page No.10 of Supply Code.
Ext.R6 - complaint register page No.183.
/ Forwarded by Order /
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
