BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER C.C. No. 27/2009 Filed on 03.02.2009 Dated : 31.03.2010 Complainant: Sunny Joseph, Kalliyadickal, K.P 1/774(1), Madankovil Lane, Muttada P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.
Opposite parties:
The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram. The Assistant Engineer, KSEB Section Office, Kesavadasapuram.
(By adv. S. Balachandran)
This O.P having been heard on 22.02.2010, the Forum on 31.03.2010 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER
Brief facts of the case are as follows: On request to the Assistant Engineer, K.S.E.B, Kesavadasapuram Section, for the shift of a teakwood post (No. K/PM/7/16) from the Mudaikonam Junction to the side, an estimate was prepared by the Sub Engineer and was approved by the Assistant Engineer, in June 2001. In the estimate in addition to the shifting of the post and its stay there was an additional amount for installing a new stay arrangement for the nearby post also. The complainant remitted the total estimate amount Rs. 2,820/- vide the estimate D/W No. 29/2001-2002/20.06.2001 for the work as approved by the Assistant Engineer, the shifting of the post and stay was only done in 2001. As there was no installation of new stay for the nearby post as per the approved estimate work on 19.02.2006, the complainant requested the A.E to refund the original amount with interest remitted for the proposed new stay arrangement which was not materialized for the last 5 years. There was no proper reply but orally told that sometimes such work will be in record only. Hence the complainant complained to the Vigilance Office, KSEB with complaint No. 477/IGP/camp dated 20.06.2006 to enquire and refund original amount remitted for the proposed new stay with interest if there is no need of stay arrangement for the post as estimated in 2001 and as the post is still in its original position without stay even after 5 years. But there was no proper reply from the concerned authorities. Meantime in 2007 the Section Office inserted another concrete post in between the Post No. K/PM/7/17 and No. K/PM/7/18 causing an extra tension to the No. 7/17 which is the post for the proposed stay on 16.05.2008. When enquired about the complaint No. 477/IGP/camp at the vigilance office under RTI Act the Public Information Office did not reply properly. So an appeal was made to the appellate authority. In his reply they informed that since the proposed work of insertion of the stay was aborted, they are ready to refund Rs. 692/- only. But the complainant has remitted an amount of Rs. 1,328/- towards the proposed work of the stay and as there is no mistake from the side of the complainant, on 17.12.2008 the complainant informed the Chairman, KSEB to refund the amount with interest. But there was no reply. Hence the complainant approached the Forum for speedy judicial decision. The opposite parties in this case KSEB filed their version. In their version they contended that the complaint is barred by limitation and hence the complaint is only to be dismissed. They stated that the real fact is that the complainant requested to shift one teakwood post P.M 7/16 with its stay due to the widening of the road. As per his request an estimate was prepared on 20.06.2001 amounting to Rs. 2,820/- for shifting the post and for erecting a new stay to post No. PM 7/17. The post No. PM 7/17 became an ankle post due to the shifting post 7/16. Hence the new stay was required. The draft estimate is produced herewith as Ext. D1. As per Ext. D1 total charge is Rs. 2,820.18. Accepting the above said estimate the complainant remitted the said amount on 20.06.2001. But the owner of the adjacent land objected the erection of the stay in her land and hence the stay could not be executed. A notice was issued to the complainant to get the consent from Santhakumari, the owner of the property wherein the stay has to be erected. But the complainant failed to procure the same. Hence the work could not be done. The complainant claimed back refund of the amount remitted towards erection of new stay which could not be provided due to the objection raised by the adjacent owner. Accordingly an amount of Rs. 692/- had been proposed after analyzing the entire aspect and arranged, the cheque from the Electrical Division, Kazhakkuttom to the complainant, cheque No. 012925/9-2-2007. The complainant on inspection of the cheque and then the Executive Engineer asked to sign the proforma for refund of work deposit and receipt the complainant went back stating that he wants a sum of Rs. 1,328/- with interest. The opposite party further stated that against the subject matter involved in this case, complainant prepared appeal No. 05/329/2008 before the Deputy Chief Engineer, the Appellate Authority after considering the entire aspect dismissed the appeal by order dated 14.08.2008. Now the order of the Appellate Authority remains unchallenged. The appellate order became final and hence the present complaint is not maintainable. Hence the 2nd opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. The complainant in this case has filed proof affidavit and examined him as PW1. He has produced 7 documents and that documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P7. The 1st opposite party in this case, the Secretary, KSEB, did not file version nor adduced any evidence. 2nd opposite party, the Assistant Engineer, KSEB Section, Kesavadasapuram filed version and affidavit. But she did not present herself before this Forum for cross examination by the complainant. Hence we do not accept her affidavit. Points that would arise for consideration are:- Whether the complaint is barred by limitation? Whether there is deficiency in service occurred from the side of opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs sought for?
Points (i) to (iii):- In this case the complainant had remitted an amount of Rs. 2,820/- towards work deposit for shifting a post No. K/PM/7/16 and providing a new stay for the post No. K/PM/7/17. But the stay could not be provided due to the objection raised by the owner of the property where the stay had to be inserted. Hence the complainant requested the opposite parties to refund Rs. 1,328/- which he had remitted for the erection of new stay. But the 2nd opposite party did not turn up to refund the amount. Therefore the complainant filed a complaint before the Vigilance Officer, KSEB. But there was no proper reply from the concerned authorities. So an appeal was made to the appellate authority. In his reply they informed that since the proposed work of insertion of the stay was aborted they are ready to refund Rs. 672/- only. But the complainant states that he had remitted Rs. 1,328/- towards the proposed work of the stay and there is no mistake from the complainant's side. To prove his contentions he has produced 7 documents and that documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P7. Ext. P1 is the copy of estimate dated 20.06.2001. As per this estimate the complainant had remitted Rs. 2,820/- on 20.06.2001. Ext. P2 is the copy of request to the AE, KSEB dated 19.02.2006. Ext. P3 is the copy of complaint to the Vigilance Officer dated 24.05.2006. Ext. P4 is the copy of route sketch of electric line. Ext. P5 is the copy of application to the PIO under RTI Act dated 16.05.2008. Ext. P5 (1) is the reply issued by Chief Vigilance Officer dated 09.06.2008. Ext. P6 is the copy of application to the Appellate Authority and RTI Act dated 17.07.2008. Ext. P7 is the copy of order dated 19.08.2008 of Appellate Authority. As per this order the complainant is directed to collect a fresh cheque from the Division Office, Kazhakkuttom for an amount of Rs. 692/-. But the complainant is not willing to accept that amount. As per the complainant, he is entitled to get Rs. 1,328/- with interest from the opposite parties. 2nd opposite party produced 2 documents before this Forum and marked as Exts. D1 and D2. Ext. D1 is the cheque issued by the opposite party in the name of complainant for an amount of Rs. 692/- dated 09.02.2007. The complainant stated that the opposite party never informed the issuance of the cheque to the complainant till he enquired about the matter through Ext. P6 letter. Ext. D2 is the copy of payment voucher dated 09.02.2007. As per this document the refund of work deposit amount is Rs. 692/-. From this document we cannot understand how the opposite party arrived at the amount of refund. As per Ext. P1 the complainant had remitted Rs. 2,820/-. The opposite party has admitted the fact. As per the complainant the original amount remitted for the unwanted work of the proposed new stay is Rs. 1,328/-. The cause of action for the complaint has been arisen on 20.06.2001 and continues still now. The Appellate Authority passed the order on 14.08.2008. The date of complaint is 07.02.2009. Hence the complaint is not barred by limitation. As per Sec. 3 of the Consumer Protection Act the complainant has the right to file this complaint before this Forum even though there is an order from KSEB Appellate Authority (Vigilance Wing). From the above mentioned discussions we find that the complaint is maintainable before this Forum and we find that there is deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties. It is the duty of the opposite party to refund the amount to the complainant when they know the fact that the stay could not be provided due to the objection raised by the owner of the property when the stay had to be insisted. In this case complainant spent his valuable time and money for the realization of the amount which he had remitted. The opposite parties in this case failed to establish their contention how they arrived at the amount of Rs. 692/- to be refunded to the complainant. The complainant had remitted Rs. 1,328/- towards the erection of the proposed new stay for the concrete post No. K/PM/7/16. Since the work was not materialized it is the duty of the opposite parties to refund the amount to the complainant within time. In this case the opposite parties have not taken any steps to refund the amount even after the lapse of 5 years. For that he had to approach various authorities to get the amount. Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay cost and compensation also. In the result, the opposite parties are directed to refund Rs. 1,328/- to the complainant and also shall pay Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the complainant. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter 9% annual interest shall be paid to the entire amount. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31st day of March 2010.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
jb
C.C. No. 27/2009 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - Sunny Joseph II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS : P1 - Photocopy of estimate dated 20.06.2001 P2 - Photocopy of request to opposite party dated 19.02.2006 P3 - Photocopy of complaint to the Vigilance Officer dated 24.05.2006. P4 - Photocopy of route sketch of electric line. P5 - Photocopy of application to the PIO under RTI Act dated 16.05.2008 P5(1) - Photocopy of the reply issued by Chief Vigilance Officer dated 09.06.2008 P6 - Photocopy of the copy application to the Appellate Authority and RTI Act dated 17.07.2008 P7 - Photocopy of order dated 19.08.2008 of Appellate Authority. III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : D1 - Cheque issued by the opposite party in the name of complainant for an amount of Rs. 692/- dated 09.02.2007 D2 - Photocopy of payment voucher dated 09.02.2007.
PRESIDENT
| | HONORABLE President, President | HONORABLE Sri G. Sivaprasad, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE Smt. Beena Kumari. A, Member | | 
