DATE OF FILING :25/11/16 

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the 27th day of February  2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

           SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.  332/16

Between

Complainant      :  Makkar M.M.,

                                                                            Moleth House,

                                                                            10th Mile, Mannamkandam.

(By Adv: Fenil Jose)

And

Opposite Party                                          :  1 . The Secretary,

                                                                              KSEB Vyduthi Bhavan,

                                                                              Pattam P.O., Thiruvananthapuram.

                                                                        2 . The Asst. Engineer,

                                                                              KSEB Electrical Section, 

                                                                              Adimaly P.O.,  Pin - 685 561.

(By Adv:   Lissy M.M.)

 

O R D E R

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)

 

The case of the complainant is that,  

 

          The Complainant purchased a building from one Ratnamma Prabhakaran, Sreekrishna Bhavan, Valara P.O., having building Nos.19/71(1),71(2), 71(3) and 71(4) of Adimaly Grama Panchayath.  The building is situating in a non – Patta land and the possession of the building was transferred in favour of the complainant.  The Adimaly Grama Panchayath had issued the ownership certificate to the prior owner of the building as certificate No.197/13166/15-16 dated 06/11/15.  In the above said building an electric connection was installed by the second opposite party as Consumer No.3252, and it is provided under LT VII – A tariff for running business.  This connection was installed years ago and the prior owner of the building and thereafter the present owner of the building, the complainant, remitting electricity charges regularly.  After the purchase, the complainant renovated the said building. On 19/11/2016 the second opposite party issued a notice to disconnect the power supply  which is legally  installed  in  the  building  stating that there is some complaints against

                                                                                                                          (Cont.....2)

-2-

this connection and also as per the order of the additional  third opposite party, the Panchayath Secretary.  Against the direction of the additional third opposite party, the complainant approached their higher authority and also given a written explanation to the notice issued by the second opposite party.  But without considering this, the second opposite party  is taking steps to disconnect the power supply due to some external interference.

 

The complainant further stated that the attempt of the second opposite party for disconnecting the power supply without sufficient cause, is the misuse of their office.  If  the power supply of the said building is disconnected it will adversely affect the complainant  and will cause heavy loss and hardships.  Alleging deficiency in the above said act of the opposite parties, complainant approached this Forum and prayed for getting relief such as to direct the second opposite party withdrawn from their attempt for disconnecting the said power supply and other compensated relief.

 

Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  In their version opposite parties  1 and 2 contended that the building stated in the complaint was registered in the name of one Ratnamma, the consumer No.3252.  The second opposite party received a resolution of the third opposite party stating that the complainant has been engaged in the unlawful construction of building by encroaching upon “Purampoku land” stretching on either side of the river “Deviyar” at 10th Mile, Valara.  The resolution adds that the complainant has demolished the existing building having electric connection and new building constructed in this place.  The resolution required the second opposite party that no new service connection be effected and if there is any service connection already existed in the demolished buildings, it should also be dismantled.  Hence the second opposite party issued such a notice to the complainant and the first and second opposite party have not acted in violation of any law, and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the first and second opposite parties  in this matter.

 

In their reply version the third opposite party contended that, they had issued a notice in favour of the complainant against the unlawful construction and for submitting his version in this matter.  But he continued his construction in night time and on holidays.    Hence  the third  opposite party with the aid of

                                                                                                                          (Cont.....3)

-3-

local police stopped the illegal building construction of the complainant, and framed a charge against him u/s 235 A of Panchayath  Registration Act and directed him to demolish the unauthorised construction and imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- u/s 235(2) of the said Act.  Further opposite parties issued a letter to the second opposite party  for dismantling the prevailing  electric connection of the unauthorised building.

 

The third opposite party further contended that, the building in question is not transferred in the name of the complainant so far and as per records the building having the number discussed above was an old dilapidated single storied building.  The complainant demolished this building and constructed a newly double storied building  in its place, without obtaining permission from the additional third opposite party and without producing any related records before the additional third opposite party.

 

The third opposite party further contended that, the electric connection was given by the second opposite party was to the old building.  If there is no such building there, the second opposite party is at liberty to dismantle such connection and this matter is under vigilance enquiry.

 

Complainant adduced evidence by way of documents and marked  it as Ext.P1 and Ext.P2.  Ext.P1 is the copy of Residence/Ownership certificate, Ext.P2 is the notice issued by the second opposite party  to the complainant.  No oral evidence adduced.

 

From the opposite parties side the second opposite party was examined as DW1 and Ext.R1 to Ext.R4 were marked.  Ext.R1 is the copy of resolution of the third opposite party, Ext.R2 is the copy of Gazettee Notification dated 31/01/14, Ext.R3 is the notice issued by the Addl. Tahsildar,  Devikulam to the second opposite party, Ext.R4 is the copy of Ext.P2.

 

Heard both side 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 ?

 

                                                                                                                          (Cont.....4)

-4-

The Points:-   We have carefully considered the matter and perused the records of the case.  The defence version is that the complainant is a consumer of electric connection vide consumer No.3252 provided in the building having No.197/13166/15-16 of Adimaly Grama Panchayath.  This connection was provided years back to the prior owner of the building.  As per Ext.P1 ownership cum residential certificate, issued by the Adimaly Grama Panchayath in favour of the complainant, it is very clear that the Additional third opposite party admits the complainant's ownership of the above numbered building and  this  certificate was issued exclusively for the purpose of electrification and the certificate is dated 06/11/2015.  Additional third opposite party has not challenged its genuineness.  The second opposite party has not a case that they given electric connection  to an unauthorized building.  More over in the box on a cross examination the second opposite party  categorically stated that From the deposition of DW1, Sub Engineer, Electricity Section, Adimaly  appeared for and on behalf of opposite parties 1 and 2 it is obvious that nothing is happened herein illegally, to disconnect the electric connection of the building discussed above.

 

At the same time in their written version additional third opposite party specifically contended that they already initiated penal provision of Kerala Panchayath Raj Act against the complainant and the  State Vigilance is proceeding against him.

 

In the present case no relief is sought against the additional third opposite party, by the complainant.   Additional third opposite party is included in the party array, only after the receipt of reply version of opposite parties  1 and 2.  

 

In the view of the above discussion, it is found that the second opposite party is acted for and on behalf of the additional third opposite party  and in the   box  they   deposed  that  there  is  no  need  to   dismantle  the    electric

                                                                                                                          (Cont.....5)

-5-

connection in question.  Hence the complaint allowed, the first and second opposite parties  are restrained from disconnecting the power supply of the building Nos. 19/71(1),71(2),71(3) and 71(4) in Ward No. XIX of Adimaly Grama Panchayath.  No cost or compensation is ordered. 

 

Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the  27th day of  February, 2018.

 

                                                                                                 Sd/-

                                                                            SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)                                                                                                     

                                                                                                        Sd/-

                                                                                 SRI. BENNY. K.  (MEMBER)

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

Nil

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1              - Giby S.Thekkel

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1        -  The copy of Residence/Ownership certificate

Ext.P2        - The notice issued by the second opposite party  to the complainant. 

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1     -  The copy of resolution of the third opposite party

Ext.R2     -  The copy of Gazettee Notification dated 31/01/14

Ext.R3     -  The notice issued by the Addl. Tahsildar Devikulam to the 

                    second opposite party

Ext.R4     - The copy of Ext.P2

 

 

                   Forwarded by Order,

 

 

                          SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT