DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM  PALAKKAD

Dated this the 27^th  Day  of February  2012

Present    : Smt.Seena H, President

               : Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member       

           : Smt. Bhanumathi.A.K, Member                 Date of filing: 07/10/2011    

                             (C.C.No.174/2011)

Narayanankutty Gupthan,

S/o.Late Kunju Gupthan,

Vadakkekkara House,

Kattukulam amsom,

Mangalamkunnu Desom,

Sreekrishnapuram – II Village,

Ottapalam Taluk,

Palakkad – 679 513                                          -        Complainant

(By Adv.P.Krishnakumar)

                                                                     V/s

1.The Kerala State Electricity Board,

   Rep.by Asst.Engineer,

   K.S.E.B. Office, Sreekrishnapuram,

   Palakkad – 679 513

   (Party in Person)

2.The Assistant Engineer,

   K.S.E.B. Office,

   Sreekrishnapuram,

   Palakkad – 679 513    

   (Party in Person)                               -        Opposite parties    

  O R D E R

          By  Smt.PREETHA G NAIR,  MEMBER

The Complainant having an electricity connection with consumer No.2568 from the opposite parties. He got the connection in the year 1986. At the time of giving the electricity connection 5 electric posts were erected at the expense of consumers. From the month of June 2011, either the electricity voltage in complainant’s house is continuously fluctuating or the power is frequently cut off so as to make his life very miserable. On enquiry the complainant understand that  the route in which the connection was given earlier was changed to another route, which is longer than the earlier route and the same involves more  junctions, connections and cables and same leads beneath several trees and through bushes causing earthing effect and the fluctuation  of the current and power failure are the result of the new route. Due to the fluctuation of the current and frequent power failure many house hold electrical equipments of complainant became damaged. One colour  television of Philips worth Rs.10,000/- Maharaja Mixie worth Rs.3,500/- Nine CFL bulbs worth Rs.2,520/- and 5 ordinary bulbs of 60 volts worth Rs.60 totaling the damage to Rs.16,080. Then the complainant contacted opposite parties office for getting the problem redressed by rerouting the supply of electricity to the earlier route. But no action taken from the side of opposite parties. The complainant given a notice to the opposite parties on 16/8/11 and they not replied. Due to the problems in supplying of electricity the studies of children are affected adversely and caused mental agony to the entire family of the complainant. Complainant is a senior citizen aged 73 years suffering age  related problems of heart and rheumatism etc. The complainant’s wife also aged 60 years, who is also suffering from several age related problems. In an earlier occasion also the complainant preferred a complaint against  the K.S.E.B. before the Forum for the deficiency of service on their part, which was awarded and compensation was paid to the complainant. In another occasion the opposite party made an attempt to give connection to Mr.Rajagopal through complainant’s property was obstructed by him. Complainant believes that the opposite parties are keeping hostile attitude towards him always for the above said reasons. Due to the act and attitude of opposite parties, complainant  underwent severe mental agony. The complainant sent a lawyer notice on 8/9/11 to 1^st opposite party demanding rerouting of electric line to earlier route and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- The first opposite party sent reply stating false contentions. Hence the complainant prays an order directing the opposite parties  to

1. Reroute the electric connection to the house of the complainant through earlier route.
2. Pay Rs.1,00,000/- with 12% interest per annum as compensation for the mental agony.
3. Pay the cost of the proceedings.

Opposite parties filed version stating the following contentions. The contentions in the complaint regarding the electrical connection itself is wrong. In fact the service connection to the complainant was given in 1989 and not in 1986.  The opposite parties have not rerouted the entire line as stated in the complaint. But transferred  the connection to other feasible line recently constructed along public path for minimizing interruption to the consumers at large and also considering safety aspects since the earlier route was passing through a difficult way having trees and bushes. The newly constructed route is along public path with adequate clearance from trees and easy for maintenance purpose. The electric  connection for the houses situated adjacent to the complainant’s house is also given from the very same line and no complaints have received by any of them regarding the voltage fluctuation. 

Since the Board being cautious about the problems of the consumers on the receipt  of the complaint given by complainant dated 16/8/11. The 1^st opposite party made an inspection over the site and it was noticed that the LT line in between post No.3 and 4 is sagging very much. As the LT line is passing through a tough way having trees near by there was a chance of conductor snapping due to rubbing with the branches of trees. The opposite party transferred the service connection to the newly constructed line for the convenience and providing better supply to the consumer.

There was no damage as stated in the complaint is happened. Even if the damage as stated in the complaint is happened it has to be properly assessed and the District Electrical Inspector having the statutory  powers to inspect and assess the damage.  No application is seen filed by the complainant. Presently the Distribution Transformer is near to the complainant’s locality and the board have strengthened the LT distribution network at the time of pre-monsoon maintenance work. The supply of electricity was very stable in the locality. The 1^st opposite party had made a visit and enquired even after receiving the complaint and on enquiry it was found that there was no fluctuation during the last 6 months. The damages as alleged in the complaint might have happened on account of supply failure and fluctuation due to the internal wiring of the consumer premises, which is to be rectified by the consumer. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  The Board or its employees never trespassed the property. The complainant had acknowledged the work with a letter dated 30/10/08. Hence the opposite parties prayed that dismiss the complaint with cost.

Both parties filed their affidavit and documents. Ext.A1 to A6 marked on the side of complainant. Ext.B1 and B2 marked on the side of the opposite parties.

Issues to be considered are

1.Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties ?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost ?

Issues No.1 & 2

Admittedly the complainant availed electric connection from the opposite parties under the consumer No.2568. The opposite parties admitted that they have transferred the connection to other feasible line recently constructed along public path for minimizing interruption to the consumers at large and also considering safety aspects since the earlier route was passing through a difficult way having trees and bushes. The electric connection for the houses situated adjacent to the complainant house is also given from the very same line.   Ext.B2 is the letter dated 30/10/08 shows that the complainant withdrew the complaint after transferring the electric line. Moreover in Ext.B2 complainant stated that now the electric connection transferred as per his direction on his property.  

          Ext.B1 is the letter dated 22/9/11 given by one of the consumer near to the complainant stating that there was no voltage fluctuation and no damage happened to the Television. The opposite parties stated that the 1^st opposite party had made a visit after receiving  the complaint and found that there was no fluctuation during the last months. Ext.B1 is the statement given by one of the neighbours of complainant. But the opposite parties has not produced evidence to prove the enquiry  was  conducted and there was no voltage fluctuation.  Moreover   the Ext.B1  letter given by the consumer  was not examined as a witness.

In Ext.A5 the 2^nd opposite party stated that the officials of K.S.E.B. had attended the complaint dated 16/8/11 and rectified the problems of the line by providing new stay.  Thereafter the complainant  filed the complaint before the Forum. According to opposite parties the fluctuation in supply was due to natural calamities and hence the Board is not liable to pay any compensation.

It is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to rectify the problems of the line by providing new stay to avoid voltage fluctuations. The complainant has not produced evidence to show the damages happened  on the television, mixie, CFL bulbs and ordinary bulbs. According to opposite parties no application is seen filed by the complainant before the District Electrical Inspector to assess the damages due to voltage fluctuations.  But in Ext.A3 the complainant given the letter to opposite parties stating the damages of T.V.due to voltage fluctuations. The opposite parties have not produced evidence to show that they rectified the problems of the line after receiving the letter dated 16/8/2011. According to the complainant the studies  of children are affected adversely and caused mental agony to the complainant. More over the complainant and his wife are senior citizens and suffered age related problems of heart and rheumatism. No  documentary evidence was produced by the complainant to prove the problems of heart and rheumatism of complainant. In Ext.A3 the complainant  has demanded to rectify the electric line. The complainant has not produced evidence to show that the application to reroute was given to opposite parties. The say of opposite parties that after receiving letter from the complainant they rectified the problems of the electric line. In short, opposite parties admitted that there is problems in the electric line and they rectified the problems.

Normally due to the problems in supply of electricity affects the studies of children and senior citizen of suffering age  related problems.  On the available evidence and circumstances rectification  of the problems of electric line necessary.  In the interest of natural justice we allowed the complaint partly.

We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally liable to reroute the electric connection to the house of the complainant through earlier route within one month from the date of receipt of order. Opposite party is at liberty to levy from the complainant reroute charges and other charges if any as per the rules. Opposite parties directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings.  

If the opposite parties failed to comply the order within the ordered period,  the complainant shall claim an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) from the opposite parties.  

        Pronounced in the open court on this the  27^th  day of February  2012

                                                                                    Sd/-

Seena.H

President

                                                                                   Sd/-

Preetha G Nair

Member

   Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K.

Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

1.Ext. A1  – Lawyer notice dated 8/9/11 sent by complainant’s advocate to opposite

                   party

2. Ext. A2 –  Lawyer notice dated 12/9/11 sent by complainant’s advocate to opposite

                    parties

3. Ext. A3 –  Copy of application  sent by complainant to opposite party dated 16/8/11

4.Ext.A4 – Postal acknowledgment card

5.Ext.A5 – Reply to advocate letter by opposite party dated 13/9/11

6.Ext.A6 series – Returned letter (2 nos)

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party

1.Ext. B1 – Letter sent by Prajeesh to opposite party dated 22/9/11

2.Ext. B2 – Letter sent by Narayanankutty to opposite party dated  30/10/08

Cost Allowed

Rs.1,000/- allowed as  cost of the proceedings.