DATE OF FILING : 29.1.2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 28th day of February, 2017
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO.48/2015
Between
Complainant : Robin,
Koyickakudiyil House,
Irumpupalam,
Adimali, Idukki.
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,
KSEB, Vydyuthi Bhavan,
Pattam, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
KSEB,
Electrical Section,
Adimali P.O., Idukki.
(Both by Adv: Lissy M.M.)
3. The Secretary,
Adimali Gramapanchayath,
Adimali – 685 561.
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complainant is a consumer of electricity connection having No.20627 provided to his building No.625 situated in Adimali Gramapanchayath as LT VIIA tariff for running a tyre vulcanization business. This connection was installed in the year 2012 and ever since the complainant is remitting the electricity bill without any default. The complainant himself is running the business for his livelihood. On 28.2.2015, the 2nd opposite party entered the said premises and tried to disconnect the electric connection, as to the pretext that there is some complaint against this connection, arbitrarily without having any prior notice or providing a chance to hear the complainant.
(cont....2)
- 2 -
The complainant further stated that the attempt of the opposite party was based on some illmotivated complaints from some local political parties. The complainant has not committed any mistake or defaulted any bill. If the electric supply is disconnected, the complainant will cause loss and damages. The attempt of opposite parties to disconnect the power supply of the complainant is on fictitious ground and is illegal and deficiency in service from their party. Hence the complainant filed this petition for getting a direction to the opposite party to withdraw disconnecting the power supply of the above said connection and also direct to pay an amount of Rs.10000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as cost to the complainant.
Upon notice, opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed version. In their version, opposite parties 1 and 2 contended that the complainant violated the regulation 14 of the Kerala State Electricity Supply Code 2014 and shifted the meter and service connection from the premises of the consumer No.20627 to the newly constructed building without obtaining sanction from this opposite parties. He had constructed a building under the right of way of EHT-line-Pallivasal-Aluva 66 KV feeder and Valara 11 KV feeder without getting NOC from the Electrical Inspectorate regarding maintenance of statutory clearance. Thus violated Regulation 61 of CEA Regulations, 2010. Moreover, he had submitted a false ownership certificate for getting service connection to the newly constructed building. The authenticity of the certificate was enquired with the Adimali Gramapanchayath and found that the certificate was not issued by them. Based on that reason, the application for service connection was not entertained by this opposite parties. Hence the complainant approached this Forum suppressing all the facts with unclear hands.
Opposite party further contended that the complainant applied for a new electric connection to the newly constructed building with an ownership certificate dated7.7.2014 of the Adimali Gramapanchayath. Meanwhile the Adimali Gramapanchayath, in their letter dated 17.6.2013
(cont....3)
- 3 -
had instructed the Assistant Engineer, Adimali that certain encroachment to the Government land at Irumpubalam area were noticed and hence the ownership certificate produced along with application for service connection from that area should be carefully scrutinised before effecting connection. As such, on receipt of application on 4.8.2014, a letter was issued to the Secretary, Gramapanchayath Adimali (3rd opposite party) to assure the veracity of the ownership certificate produced by the complainant. In his reply on 30.8.2014, 3rd opposite party stated that the ownership certificate was fake and this was not issued by them. Hence the application of the complainant was rejected on the above said ground. Having failed in his attempt, the complainant shifted the existing service connection to his own accord to the unauthorized building without submitting any application in the section office of KSEB, for shifting the meter and other accessories. He demolished the building to which the service connection was originally installed on 24.8.2012. In response to a complaint regarding the above act of complainant, the 2nd opposite party inspected the premises and found that the complainant violated the regulation of condition of supply 2014 and CEA regulation, 2010.
In their written version, opposite parties contended that, as per the building tax assessment register of their office, the building having number IV/625A is not in the ownership of Robin Mathew, Koyickakudiyil, Irumbupalam.
From the complainant’s side, Exts.P1 to P3 marked. Ext.P1 is copy of building tax receipt. Ext.P2 is copy of ownership certificate dated 10.4.2012. Ext.P3 is copy of electricity bill dated 23.9.2013. From the defence side Exts.R1 to R8 were marked. Ext.R1 is copy of application form for service connection dated 22.8.2012, submitted by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party. Ext.R2 is copy of application for service connection dated 4.7.2014. Ext.R3 is copy of letter issued by the Secretary, Gramapanchayath, Adimali, to the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section Office, Adimali, dated 30.8.2014. Ext.R4 is copy of ownership (cont....4)
- 4 -
certificate dated 27.3.2014. Ext.R5 is copy of letter from the Secretary, Adimali Gramapanchayath to the Assistant Engineer, Adimali dated 17.6.2013. Ext.R6 is copy of ownership certificate dated 30.8.2014. Ext.R7 is copy of mahazar dated 23.2.2015. Ext.R8 is copy of letter issued by the opposite parties dated 4.8.2014. No oral evidence adduced by both parties.
Heard in detail.
The point that arose 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 matter and perused the records of the case. The defence version is that, the complaianant is a consumer of electric connection vide consumer No.20627. This connection was provided to him in the year 2012, based on Ext.R1 application. By perusing Ext.R1, we can see that the electrical connection is given to the building having number IV/625A2. This connection is provided to a shop room. As per the ownership certificate attached to the Ext.R1, issued by 3rd opposite party dated 10.4.2012, one Robin Mathew, Koyickayil, is the owner of this building and as per the property tax assessment register for the year 1993-94 to 2012-2013 also. This certificate was issued exclusively for the purpose of submitting before the electricity board authorities for getting electric connection. Following pages of this exhibit are the indemnity bond and sketch. The indemnity bond is not filled and properly dated. Then by perusing Ext.R2, we can see that it is another set of application dated 8.7.2014 for the same purpose submitted by the complainant to the electricity board. In this application, the building number is entered as IV/625A. So apparently there is a difference in building number in Exts.R1 and R2. In Ext.R1, it is noted as IV/625A2 and in Ext.R2, it is IV/625A. Comparing these two document, it is obvious that the present electrical connection is provided in the year 2012 for the building having number IV/625A2. As per the Ext.R1, connection (cont....5)
- 5 -
is applied for a shop room and for commercial purpose. As per Ext.R2, it is applied for domestic purpose. Then come to Ext.R4. Ext.R4 is the ownership certificate issued by the opposite parties to the complainant. Ext.R5 is letter dated 17.6.2013 issued by the 3rd opposite party to 2nd opposite party. From this letter, 3rd opposite party given a warning to the 2nd opposite party that, they got information that some local people are trespassed the public property owned by the panchayath and constructed building and on the basis of some lawful ownership certificate, they obtained electrical connection to these unauthorized constructions. As per Ext.R2, the complainant approached 2nd opposite party on 8.7.2014 for electrical connection and submitted his application along with ownership certificate issued by 3rd opposite party dated 27.3.2014. As per the version of 2nd opposite party, they enquired this matter and on enquiry, it is found that this building is situated in the right side of Kochi-Dhanushkodi NH 49 and it is purambokku land. Through Ext.R8 letter, 2nd opposite party enquired about the issuance and genuineness of the ownership certificate issued by the panchayath to the complainant. In reply to this letter, 3rd opposite party stated that the ownership certificate was fake and fabricated and no such certificate was issued from the office of 3rd opposite party. To prove this, 3rd opposite party issued copy of each certificate to the 2nd opposite party for perusal and it is marked as Ext.R6.
In Ext.R6 dated 30.8.2014, it is stated as the "building number IV/625/A2(sheet), according to Property Tax Assessment register for the year 1993-94 to 2014-15 and it is issued to apply for electrification". Comparing Ext.R4 possession certificate dated 27.3.2014 submitted along with Ext.R2 application and Ext.R6 possession certificate dated 30.8.2014 allegedly issued by the 3rd opposite party, having some difference in its structure and there is no official seal found in Ext.R4. On the basis of the information from 3rd opposite party, 2nd opposite party conducted inspection and found that the alleged building is new one and it is (cont....6)
- 6 -
electrified and prepared Ext.R7 mahazar on 23.2.2015. In this point of time, it is to be noted that Ext.R2 application was submitted by the complainant on 4.7.2015 and as per Ext.R7, inspection was conducted on 23.2.2015. As per Ext.R7, "it is reported that electric meter was fixed in this building as unauthorized and without prior sanction of KSEB". At this juncture, it is very pertinent to note that, whether the 2nd opposite party conducted further enquiry that how the complainant replaced this connection from the old shop room to the new building without the consent of the electrical authorities board and who helped to install such a service connection. It is also to be noted that eventhough the opposite parties found that the complainant fabricated the document with the seal and sign of Special Grade Secretary and produced before some authority, no action was initiated against this office, till now. It is the bounden duty of the opposite parties to answer this question and find the actual culprits behind this activities. It is to be noted that no notice was issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant before trying to disconnect the electric connection. Without having sufficient enquiry and without giving a chance to the complainant to be heard, they erroneously proceeded against the complainant. Hence we cannot come to a conclusion that the complainant created forged documents and shifted the connection without the sanction of the 2nd opposite party and the action initiated by the 2nd opposite party is against the principles of natural justice.
In view of the above discussion, it is found that the opposite parties are miserably failed to counter the averments in the complaint with clear and cogent evidence and the points discussed above are found in favour of the complainant.
Hence the complaint allowed in part. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to withdraw from the present proceedings against the complainant and not to disconnect the power supply vide consumer No.20627 to the (cont....7)
- 7 -
building No.625 in Ward No.IV of Adimali Grama Panchayath and 3rd opposite party is directed to not to interfere in this matter. No cost or compensation is ordered.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 28th day of February, 2017
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - copy of building tax receipt.
Ext.P2 - is copy of ownership certificate dated 10.4.2012.
Ext.P3 - copy of electricity bill dated 23.9.2013.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1 - copy of application form for service connection dated
22.8.2012, submitted by the complainant to the
2nd opposite party.
Ext.R2 - copy of application for service connection dated 4.7.2014.
Ext.R3 - copy of letter issued by Secretary, Gramapanchayath,
Adimali, to AE, Electrical Section Office, dated 30.8.2014.
Ext.R4 - copy of ownership certificate dated 27.3.2014.
Ext.R5 - copy of letter from the Secretary, Adimali Gramapanchayath
to the Assistant Engineer, Adimali dated 17.6.2013.
Ext.R6 - copy of ownership certificate dated 30.8.2014.
Ext.R7 - copy of mahazar dated 23.2.2015.
Ext.R8 - copy of letter issued by the opposite parties dated 4.8.2014.
/ Forwarded by Order /
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
