CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOTTAYAM.
Present
Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
CC No 111/11
Monday the 30th day of January, 2012
Petitioner : P.T. Mathew,
Plathottam House,
Poonjar, Thekkekara PO,
Meenachil Taluk, Kottayam Dist.
Vs.
Opposite party : Executive Engineer,
Electrical Division,
K.S.E.B, Pala.
2) Asst.Engineer,
Electrical Section,
K.S.E.B, Poonjar,
Thekkekara PO.
3) Secretary,
K.S.E.B.,Vaidhuthi Bhavan,
Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
ORDER
Sri. K.N. Radhakrishnan, Member
The case of the complainant presented on 9/5/11 is as follows. He had taken the electric connection from the opposite parties in 1980 by meeting the expenses, including the charge of two posts ie 2000, as contribution. While so on 1986 he had constructed a new residential building near by the old house. Petitioner remitted prescribed fee for shifting of the connection to the new residential building. But opposite party without intimating the complainant shifted one post and issue connection to the new building. Opposite parties had took one post. Due to this the length between two posts was 65 meters. Hence there was dangerous situation due to the negligent act of the opposite parties. The complainant approached the opposite parties several times to rectify the defects and to reduce the lengths of the line as 65 meters. The complainant had remitted Rs.3790/- as shifting charges. Opposite parties shifted the post without the consent or by taking advice of the complainant. There was clear deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has sustained heavy loss and hardships due to the negligent act of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
The notice was served with the opposite parties. They appeared and filed their version contending as follows. The complainant was a consumer under Electrical Section, Poonjar with consumer No.1152 since the formation of the Section in 1998. In 1980 he was a consumer under section, Erattupetta with consumer No.5865. Service connections are effected to consumers through various schemes as part of Govt.Policy and for the convenience of the consumers. While shifting the existing posts both technical and financial feasibility was considered and shifted to a convenient place as requested. The complainant constructed the new house and requested to shift the meter to the new house. The meter was shifted to the new house along with the line through the most feasible way requested. The number and location of posts are decided considering the financial and technical feasibility. As per the standing rules of K.S.E.Board to shift the line as per request of the consumer, work deposit had to be remitted by the applicant. The complainant had given in writing that he was willing to remit the amount as work deposit to shift the line through the road to his house to avoid crossing of line across the road. The estimate was prepared to draw the line along the road without crossing the private road and the span of the line was determined by considering the technical and financial feasibility. The complainant did not raise any objection at the time of execution of work. There was no inconvenience in this regard caused to the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents which are marked as Exts.A1 to A8. The opposite party filed proof affidavit.
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 the needful work. According to him after remitting sufficient fee for changing the electric line opposite party has not taken effective steps to change the line in a safe position and when the complainant desires so. Hence the complainant has sustained heavy loss and hardship due to the negligent act of the opposite parties. The opposite parties had taken a contention that they are done the work properly. According to them the allegation of the complainant was not sustainable either in law or on facts. The opposite party had done the work after remitting the prescribed fees by the complainant. The opposite parties had done the work only after fulfilling all legal formalities. According to the opposite parties there was no deficiency in service on their part. Admittedly the line changing work was done without consulting the complainant. Any way the work was ready done by the opposite parties. The act of the opposite parties had caused some inconveniences to the complainant. However the work was already done by the opposite parties. So there is no scope for refund the remitted amount. The opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant for the inconveniences caused to him. Hence we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is to be allowed.
In the result the complaint is allowed as follows. We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2500/- to the complainant for the inconveniences and pay Rs.500/- as costs of these proceedings. The order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order is not complied within one month the amount will carry interest @ 10% per annum from the date of order till payment. All the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to compensate 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 letter dtd 10/1/11
Ext.A1(a) is the copy of letter dtd 10-8-09
Ext.A2-is the bill dtd 1/2/11
Ext.A3-is the letter dtd 23/2/11
Ext.A45-is the postal A/D card
Ext.A4(a) is the postal A/D card
Ext.A4(b) is postal A/D card
Ext.A5-is letter dtd 22/3/11
Ext.A6-is the copy of letter dtd 17/9/11
Ext.A7-is the copy of letter dtd 13/10/11
Ext.A8-is the copy of location map.
By Order,
Senior Superintendent
