DATE OF FILING: 17.06.2011
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No. 136/2011
Between
Complainant : N.K.Balan,
Nambuzha House,
Adimali P.O,
Polinjapalam,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Shiji Joseph)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Secretary,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vydhyudhi Bhavan,
Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Kerala State Electricity Board,
Electrical Division, Adimali,
Kallarkutty P.O, Kathippara,
Idukki District.
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
The complainant is residing at the above shown address with his family in a residential building constructed 20 years back in 14 cents of land. After the construction of the complainant's house, many buildings were constructed after filling the paddy field surrounding the complainant's building. So the complainant’s residence is lying in a lower level comparing to the adjacent buildings. So there is only one way to flow the waste water from the compound to the nearby drainage. The employees of the 2nd opposite party erected a new electric post recently for providing electric connection to a nearby house. For erecting the electric post, they dig the pit obstructing the flow of the drainage from the complainant's house to the nearby drainage canal. The opposite parties never received any consent or give any prior notice to the complainant before the erection of the post. The opposite parties erected the post while the complainant and his family were not at the station because the complainant and his family were employees and the children are studying. On 9.01.2011 the complainant filed a written complaint for shifting the post to a convenient place, however no action has been taken. On 14.03.2011 the complainant again gave a written complaint to the 2nd opposite party but nothing has been done. The complainant is ready to pay the charges for shifting of the electric post. So this petition is filed for giving a direction to the opposite party for shifting the newly erected post to a convenient place so as to facilitate the flow of water.
2. As per the written version filed by the 2nd opposite party on behalf of the Ist opposite party, it is admitted that an electric post was erected on the extreme side of the concrete road so as to give an electric connection to a newly registered consumer. Since the road is very narrow, the post could be erected only on the extreme side of the road. There is no system of drains at all in the areas as stated by the complainant. In no way there is hindrance for the water flowing from the compound of the complainant to the nearest drainage canal. The opposite parties are not legally bound to inform to the complainant as it was erected only on the road side. On the basis of the notice served by the petitioner, the opposite party inspected the area in question and found that the electric post was put up at the right place only from where the service connection to the newly registered consumer could be effected. If the electric post is shifted to the other side as insisted by the petitioner, the opposite party has to cut down a coconut tree of a nearby resident. There is no drainage system in the area nor did the electric post erected block the flowing of water from the compound. So the petition may be dismissed.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 and Exts.P1 and P2 marked on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence adduced by the opposite parties.
5. The POINT :- The complainant produced evidence as PW1. After the purchase of the property of the complainant, the surrounding paddy field was filled with mud and constructed many buildings. So the complainant's property has became very low comparing to the other properties and it caused obstruction in the flow of water from the property of the complainant. The rain water and waste water coming from the property of the neighbours are flowing through the drainage facility in front of the property of the complainant. The opposite parties erected an electric post obstructing the drainage water in extreme eastern side of the property of the complainant while the complainant and his family were out of station. Two stones have been erected strongly so that the water is absolutely obstructed. So while there is heavy rain there is no source for flow of water from the courtyard and property of the complainant. Eventhough several complaints were given to the opposite party for shifting the electric post, nothing was done by the opposite parties. Ext.P1 is the copy of complaint dated 9.01.2011 given to the Assistant Engineer of the 2nd opposite party. Ext.P2 is the copy of complaint dated 14.03.2011 given to the 2nd opposite party. A commission report was filed by an advocate commissioner after inspecting the disputed property and the commission report is marked as Ext.C1. The commissioner was examined as PW2. As per PW2, an electric post has been erected in the drainage canal in eastern side of the property and two stones were also erected in the side of the post. So the flow of water from the complainant's courtyard has been obstructed by the same because two sides of the complainant's residence were filled with mud. The commissioner also deposed that the post cannot be erected in the opposite side of the road because electrical lines were drawn through that way. If the electric post is erected in the southern side of the property, there should be no obstruction for drainage water. As per the complainant, the post has been erected by the opposite party in his property without getting the consent of the complainant and his family. The post was erected while the complainant and his family were out of station. The only drainage facility of the house of the complainant has been obstructed by erecting the electric post. It was done in order to give electric supply to a newly built-up building. But as per the written version of the opposite party, the electric post has been erected in the extreme side of the road because the road is very narrow and no consent is needed for the same because it is erected in the side of the road and not in the property of the complainant. There is no drainage system in that area. If the post is shifted to any other side as instructed by the complainant the opposite party has to cut a coconut tree of a nearby resident.
On perusing the commission report of the advocate commissioner and the deposition of PW2, it is very clear that there is obstruction of flow of water from the property of the complainant due to the erection of the electric post and the electric post has been erected in the drainage canal in front of the complainant's residence for giving feasible connection to the neighbouring residents. It is also stated that two stones were fixed strongly on the side of the post so that the flow of the water has been absolutely obstructed. On perusing he photographs produced by the opposite party and Exts.P1 and P2 complaints given to the opposite parties, it is very clear that the complainant filed petition to the opposite parties to shift the electric post to a convenient place for avoiding the obstruction of the flow of water. In Ext.P1 complaint given by PW1 to the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Adimali, it is stated that the post should be shifted to the eastern side of the road so that the obstruction in flow of water can be avoided. In Ext.P2 complaint also it is written that the post should be erected to the eastern side of the road in order to avoid obstruction in the flow of water. While perusing Ext.C1 commission report and the photographs produced by the opposite parties, it is clear that the post has been erected in the extreme edge of the narrow road so that the post cannot be shifted to the eastern side of the road because the road is not having much width. So the only available remedy is to shift the electric post to the southern side. The post is erected to supply electricity to the neighbouring property holders and the only objection raised by the opposite party to shift the same is which needed to cut down a coconut tree of that property owner. So the post is erected in the property of the complainant obstructing the drainage in order to give electricity to the neighbouring people. But the opposite party is not ready to cut down the coconut tree which means the action of the opposite party is not bonafide and proper. These matters were not at all challenged by the opposite parties. We think that the complainant has given several complaints to the opposite party to shift the electric post to a convenient place but that was not done by the opposite party. As per the complainant, it was for helping the neighbouring property owner who is the staff of the opposite party that the opposite party never took any action for Exts.P1 and P2 complaints filed by the complainant. It is a gross deficiency from the part of the opposite parties.
Hence the petition allowed. The opposite parties are directed to shift the electric post erected in the extreme south eastern side of the complainant's property to the southern side, which is in the south west side of the road to enable free flow of water through the drainage within 15 days of receipt of a copy of this order. The complainant should approach the opposite parties and meet the expenses for the same.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 26th day of September, 2011
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of Complainant :
PW1 - N.K.Balan
PW2 - Jose Thomas
On the side of Opposite Parties :
Nil
Exhibits:
On the side of Complainant:
Ext.P1 - Photocopy of complainant's complaint dated 09.01.2011
addressed to the Assistant Engineer of the 2nd opposite party
Ext.P2 - Photocopy of complainant's complaint dated 14.03.2011
addressed to the2nd opposite party
Ext.C1 - Commission Report
On the side of Opposite Parties:
Nil
