BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC. 3 / 2002 MONDAY THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010. T. Srinivasan, S/o. K.S. Thiruvengadam, No.4/195, New No.641, Vallalar Nagar, Vaniyambadi Road, Vellore District. … Complainant. - Vs – 1. Sri Venkatachalapathy, Junior Engineer (North), O & M TNEB, Hayath Nagar, Vaniyambadi Road, Tirupattur, Vellore District. 2. The Assistant Engineer (North) TNEB, Idhga Maidan, Tirupattur, Vellore District. 3. The Superintending Engineer, TNEB, Balammal Colony, Tirupattur, Vellore District. 4. The Chief Engineer, Distribution, TNEB, Gandhi Nagar, Vellore – 6. 5. The Chairman, CPRO Chairman’s Complaint Cell, TNEB, 800 Annal Salai, Chennai 600 002. … Opposite parties. . . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 14.9.2010, in the presence of Thiru. M.R. Ramanan, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. T.L. Narayanan, Advocate for the opposite parties and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. I. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant learns that the opposite parties 1 to 3 have given electric service connection to Vignesh Hospital in Tirupattur by constructing a new transformer at Vallalar Nagar, Main Road, at the street corner to which electricity connection was given from the pole situate near the complainant’s house. This is High Tension electricity wire which goes to the said transformer from where it is diverted to Vignesh Hospital through the street in such a manner that the High tension wire passing over and above the roof of the complainant’s house in which the complainant is living with the members of his family. Apart from this a new electric pole is erected to give electric connection to Dr.Kalivaradhan which is highly hazardous and dangerous to the human life and their safety. The opposite parties several times and asked them to remove the electric pole from the present place. He gave a telegram to the 1st opposite party on 28.6.99 to stop erection of the electric pole in front of his house since it was dangerous. But the 1st opposite party deliberately avoided receiving it and accepted the same after executing the erection of the pole taking personal interest in doing so even though the complainant vehemently objected to the same. Immediately he complained the matter to opposite parties 2 to 5 through several letters. The opposite parties 2 to 5 did not take any action on these letters. The Electricity Supply Act of 1948 and also the Indian Electricity Rules of 1956 clearly prohibit the erection of poles and taking of high tension wires over and above the roofs of residential houses like the one now done in the case of the complainant as it would not only cause danger to human life but also violation of Indian Electricity (Supply) Act and rules amount to dis-service to consumers and also committing deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thereby causing mental agony to the consumers like the complainant. The complainant had also written to the Vigilance Officer, T.N.E.B. Chennai about this matter on 14.9.99. 2. The 3rd opposite party had sent a reply making mention only of the letter of the complainant dt.14.9.99 and 1.11.99 in which evasive reply was given creating his own story in order to defend his illegal acts. The opposite parties failed to remove the pole erected in front of his house and also the high tension 11 K.V. wire passing over and above his house, the complainant filed O.S.No.197/99 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Tirupattur for a mandatory injunction directing the opposite parties to do so. The opposite parties have filed counter admitting the above factum and justified the existence of the high tension wire which causes great hardship to life with a view to get speedy relief before this Hon’ble Forum, the complainant has filed an application in I.A. No.697/2001 before the District Munsiff Court, Tirupattur for withdrawing the suit and the petition will be disposed of soon, therefore the complainant is filing this O.P. before this Hon’ble Forum for reliefs mentioned hereunder. Therefore, the opposite parties are to be directed to remove the high tension 11 K.V. wires passing over and above the roof of the house of the complainant and to remove the electricity pole erected in front of the house of the complainant and also the H.T. Line passing over the street to feed the transformer erected for the purpose of Vignesh Hospital, and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant being the expenses incurred by the complainant before filing this O.P. before this Hon’ble Forum by way of writing letters to the opposite parties, contacting them in person and filing suits and also traveling expenses to meet the opposite parties, and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- being the damages for the mental agony and physical torture suffered by the complainant on account of the deficiency in service, violation and contravention of Electricity (Supply ) Act of 1948 and Indian Electricity Rules of 1956 committed by the opposite parties, to the complainant, and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- being the cost of this petition to the complainant. Hence the complaint. 3. The averments in the counter filed by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties and adopted for 3rd and 5th opposite parties are as follows: The opposite parties deny and repudiate all such averments in the complaint save such as those which are expressly admitted. AT THE OUTSET THE COMPLAINT IS PREMFACIE AND EXFACIE UN SUSTAINABLE AND NOT MAINTAINABLE AS ADMITTED A CIVIL SUIT FILED BY THE COMPLAINT IS PENIDNG BEFORE THE TIRUPPATHUR DISTRICT MUNSIF’S COURT IN OS NO. 197/99 FOR THE SAME RELIEFS AND ON THIS SHORT GORUND THE COMPLAINT IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED INLIMINE. The compliant impleading the officers of the Board, is not maintainable and is barred by virtue of Sec. 82 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act., and is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. The H T Lines had been installed in the locality passing through even prior to 1956 and the allegation as if the H T lines are installed now is absolutely baseless. The complainant had purchased the plot only in 1983 and had built his house contrary to rules and regulations, under H T lines without giving the mandatory clearance and cannot now pretend as if the Electricity Board had violated any conditions. The complainant had constructed only a ground floor which did not interfere or violate the departmental rules for the HT line, but he must have extended his house unauthorized intimating the Board, by constructing the I floor against the prescribed conditions without proper clearance. The supply to Vignesh Hospital is thoroughly unconnected with the complainant or his residence. The Vignesh Hospital was given connection through Tiruppathur Pachal Mitta Transformer which was newly installed for that purpose on payment of the charges by the Vignesh Hospital on 5.11.93 itself and in now causes any inconvenience to the complainant. This complaint filed after 9 years is perse malafide and prima-facie barred by limitation and not genuine at all. The said Dr. Kalivaradhan had applied for service connection, paid the necessary charge for erection of pole and after a study of feasibility approved by the Board only the pole was erected and energized as early as June 99 itself, give proper and adequate clearance. No one in the locality had objected then, the pole was erected in the corner of Dr Kali Varadhan’s house and not in front of the complainant’s house as falsely alleged. The telegram was received only after the entire works was completed and not before. The complainant had never approached any of the Board Officials for deviation of H T lines, which could be done only if he applies, and undertakes to deposit the necessary charges payable as per the estimation of the board. 4. As early as 23.11.99 itself a proper reply was sent to the complainant explaining the entire procedure and how service connection was effected to Dr. Kalivaradahan, though the opposite parties were not duty bound to do so. The claim of Rs.2,00,000/- as damages for “mental agony and physical torture” is unsustainable as it is vexatious and not based on truth, but merely self inflict. There is no deficiency of service nor any violation of rules as false alleged. The complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. 5. Now the points for consideration are: (a) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite parties? (b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 6. Ex.A1 to Ex.A22 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite parties have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 7. POINT NO. (a): It is admitted case of the parties that the opposite parties 1 to 3 have given electric service connection to Vignesh Hospital in Tirupattur by constructing a new transformer at Vallalar Nagar, Main Road, at the street corner to which electricity connection was given from the pole situate near the complainant’s house. The High Tension electricity wire which goes to the said transformer from where it is diverted to Vignesh Hospital through the street in such a manner that the High tension wire passing over and above the roof of the complainant’s house. Apart from this a new electric pole is erected to give electric connection to Dr.Kalivaradhan. 8. The opposite parties contended that the complainant already filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.197/99 before the District Munsif’s Court, Tiruppathur for the same reliefs and pending, therefore, this compliant is not maintainable before this Forum on this ground only this complaint is liable to be rejected. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that with a view to get speedy relief before this Forum, the complainant has filed an application in I.A.No.697/2001 before the District Munsif Court, Tirupattur for withdrawing the suit and the Hon’ble District Munsif has permitted to withdraw the suit on 12.11.01, accordingly the said suit has been withdrawn. From the perusal of Ex.A22 it is seen that the complainant has filed an application in I.A. No.697/01 in O.S.No.197/99 for permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the same subject matter and on the same cause of action. The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the above said suit filed earlier has been withdrawn. Therefore, it is clear that there is no civil suit pending before the District Munsif Court, Tirupathur for the same reliefs. 9. The complainant contended that he gave a telegram to the 1st opposite party on 25.6.99 to stop erection of the electric pole in front of his house since it was dangerous, but the 1st opposite party executing the erection of the pole. Immediately, the complainant sent several letters, but the opposite parties failed to remove the pole erected in front of his house and also the High Tension 11 K.V. wire passing over and above his house. It is further contended that it would not only cause danger to the family members of the complainant but also violation of Indian Electricity (Supply) Act and rules amount to dis-service to consumers and also committing deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and thereby causing mental agony to the complainant. 10. The opposite parties contended that the High Tension wire had been installed in the locality passing through even prior to 1956, but the complainant had purchased the plot only in 1983 and had built his house contrary to rules and regulation, under high tension wire without giving the mandatory clearance. It is further contended that the complainant had constructed only a ground floor which did not interferes or violate the departmental rules for the High Tension line, but he must have extended his house is unauthorized intimating the board, by constructing the 1st floor against the prescribed conditions without proper clearance. 11. The opposite parties stated in their counter, Para-8 that the complainant had purchased the plot only in 1983 and constructed a ground floor in 1985. Further, para No.9 of their counter stated that the Vignesh Hospital was given connection through Tiruppathur Pachal Mitta Tranformer which was newly installed for that purpose on payment of the charges by the Vignesh Hospital on 5.11.93 itself. Para No.11 of their Counter stated that Dr. Kalivaradhan had applied for service connection, paid the necessary charges for erection of pole and after a study of feasibility approved by the board only the pole was erected as early as June’99. Therefore, it is clear that the said transformer and pole were installed after the construction of the building of the complainant. Further, there is no proof that the High Tension wire had been installed in locality passing through even prior to 1956. 12. From the careful perusal of Ex.A21 and Ex.B1 Rough Sketchs it is seen that the transformer is erected in the corner of the Vallalar Nagar Main Road, i.e. East side of the Vanimabadi- Tirupathur Main Road, and the Vignesh Hospital is on the west side, and the Electricity supply line cross the above said Main Road. Further, it is seen that the High Tension electricity wire which goes to the said transformer from where it is diverted to Vignesh Hospital through the Vallalar Nagar Main Road or street in such a manner that the High Tension wire passing over and above the roof of the complainant’s house and also other residential houses. According to the opposite parties that the Vignesh Hospital was given electric connection through Tirupathr Pachal Mitta Transformer which was newly installed on 5.11.93 and Dr. Kalivaradhan had applied for the service connection, paid the necessary charge for erection of pole and after a study of feasibility approved by the board only the pole was erected as early as June 99 itself, but no one in the locality had object for the erection of the said pole. 13. From the perusal of Ex.A1 copy of telegram dt. 25.6.99 sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party stated that “stop deviating 11 K.V. line Vallalar Nagar, people in state of fear, street not handed over to Panchayat, we protest the action of favouring to individuals, letter follows.” Further the complainant sent letters Ex.A3, dt. 14.9.99, Ex.A4, dt. 14.9.99, Ex.A6, dt. 1.11.99, Ex.A8, dt. 17.11.99, Ex.A10 dt. 3.12.99, Ex.A11 dt. 3.12.99, Ex.A15 dt. 3.4.2000, Ex.A16 dt. 7.11.2000, Ex.A17, dt. 28.11.2000 & Ex.A18, dt. 20.2.01 to the Principal Engineer Distribution, Electricity Board, Vellore, The Vigilance Officer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai, The Chief Engineer Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Vellore, The Complaint Cell, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Chennai, and the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirupathur, stating that to stop the erection of electric pole in front of his house since it was dangerous and also to remove the High Tension 11 K.V. wires passing over the above roof of the complainant and the High Tension wire passing over the street to feed the transformer erection of the Vignesh Hospital. The Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tirupathur Division, sent a reply letter Ex.A9, dt.23.11.99 to the complainant stated that at the time of installed the transformer a suit was filed before the Court, after the advice of the Court Commissioner the said transformer was installed on 11.1.93. At the time of erection of pole for service given to Dr. Kalivaradhan no one in the locality had objected. But the Report of the Court Commissioner was not filed. It is admitted fact that inspite of sending the telegram and several letters, the opposite parties failed to remove the Electricity pole erected in front of the complainant’s house and High Tension Line passing over the street to feed the transformer erected for the purpose of Vignesh Hospital and also the High Tension 11 K.V. wires passing over and above the roof of the complainant’s house, the complainant filed the suit in O.S.No.197/99 on the filed of the District Munsif Court, Tirupathur for the mandatory injunction directing the opposite parties to remove the electric pool in the residential area and the High Tension line passing over the street and the High Tension 11 K.V. wires passing over and above the roof the complainant’s house. The opposite parties have filed the counter Ex.B2 in the said suit and justified the existing of the high tension wire. Thereafter with a view to get speedy relief before this Forum the said suit has been withdrawn by the complainant. Therefore, it is clear that at the time of installed the transformer for the service connection given to the Vignesh Hospital, and the erection of the pole for the service connection given to Dr.Kalivardhan, several petitions and telegrams were sent by the complainant to the opposite parties and suits were filed before the Court. 14. The learned counsel for the complainant argued that the Sec.18 of the Electricity Supply Act of 1948 and Rules-80 of Indian Electricity Rules of 1956 clearly prohibit the erection of pole and high tension wires passing over and above the roof the residential house. Even though the opposite parties have received the several protest letters from the complainant but they did not remove it. Therefore, it would not only cause danger to human life but also violation of Indian Electricity (Supply) Act and Rules amount to dis-service to consumers and also committed deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. I. Sec.18 of the Indian Electricity Act of 1948 reads as follows: 18. Overhead lines: - (1) Save is provided in section 13, sub-section (3), nothing in this Part shall be deemed to authorize or empower a license to place any (overhead line) along or across any street, railway, tramway, canal or waterway unless and until the State Government has communicated to him a general approval in writing of the methods of construction which the propose to adopt. II. Sec.80 of the Indian Electricity Rules of 1956 read as follows: 80. Clearances from buildings of high and extra-high Voltage lines – (1) Where a high or extra-high voltage overhead line pass above or adjacent to any building or part of a building it shall have on the basis of maximum sag a vertical clearance above the highest part of the building immediately under such line, of not less than (a) for high voltage lines up to an including 33,000 volts. … 3.7. metres (b) for extra-high voltage lines. … 3.7. metres plus 0.30 metre for every addi- tional 33,000 volts or part thereof (2) The horizontal clearance between the nearest conductor and any part of such building shall, on the basis of maximum deflection due to wind pressure, be not less than- (a) for high voltage lilnes up to and including 11,000 volts … 1.2. metres (b) for high voltage lines above 11,1000 volts and up to and including 33,000 volts … 2.0 metres. (c ) for extra-high voltage lines … 2.0. metes plus 0.3 meter for every additional 33,000 volts or part there- of 15. In the present case the opposite parties in their counter para-13 stated that the complainant had never approached any of the Board officials for deviation of high tension lines which could be done only if he applies, and under takes to deposit the necessary charges payable as per the estimate of the board. But the complainant has sent telegram Ex.A1 dt. 25.6.99 and letters Ex.A3, dt.14.9.99 and Ex.A4, dt.14.9.99, Ex.A6 dt.1.11.99 and Ex.A8 dt.17.11.99, Ex.A10 dt.3.12.99, Ex.A11 dt.3.12.99, Ex.A15, dt. 3.4.2000, Ex.A16, dt. 7.11.2000, Ex.A17, dt. 28.11.2000, Ex.A18, dt. 20.2.2001 to the opposite parties stating that stop deviating 11 K.V. line, people in state of fear and to remove the erection of electric pole in front of complainant’s house and also to remove the High Tension 11 K.V. wire passing over the above roof of the complainant’s house and the High Tension wire passing over the street to feed the transformer erection for the Service Connection to Vignesh Hospital since it is dangerous to human life. But the opposite parties did not take any action about the written protest made by the complainant from 25.6.99 onwards. Thereafter the complainant filed a suit in O.S.No.197/99 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirupathur for mandatory injunction to direct in the opposite parties to remove the electric pole in residential area and the High Tension 11 K.V wire passing over and above the roof of the complainant’s house and the street. Therefore the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant had never approached any of the Board officials for deviation of High Tension lines, which could be done only if he applies and undertakes to deposit the necessary charges payable as per the estimation of the Board is not acceptable. From the perusal of Sec. 80 of the Indian Electricity Rules of 1956 it is clearly states that where a high or extra-high voltage overhead line pass above or adjacent to any building or part of a building it shall have on the basis of maximum sag a vertical clearance above the highest part of the building immediately under such line. Even though the opposite parties have received a several petitions from the complainant from 25.6.99 onwards, the opposite parties did not take any action about the removal of electric pole, High Tension 11 K.V. wires passing over and above the complainant’s house and the Vallalar Nagar Main Road or street it would not only cause danger to the human life, but also violation of Indian Electricity (Supply) Act and Rules amount to deficiency in service committed on the part of the opposite parties. 16. Hence taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention of the complaint and counter as well proof affidavit of both parties and from the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A22 & Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, we have come to the conclusion that inspite of several letters received from the complainant from 25.6.99 onwards, the opposite parties did not take any action regarding the removal of electric pole, erected near the complainant’s house, High Tension 11 K.V. wire passing over and above the complainant’s house and Vallalar Nagar Main Road or Streets it would not only cause dangerous to the human life but also violation of Indian Electricity (Supply) Act and Rules amount to deficiency in service committed on the part of the opposite parties and thereby causing mental agony and expenses incurred by the complainant. Hence we answer this point (a) accordingly. 17. POINT NO. ( b): In view of our findings on point No. (a) we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to remove the High Tension 11 K.V. wires passing over and above the roof of the house of the complainant and to remove the electric pole erected in front of the house of the complainant and also High Tension line passing over Vallalar Nagar Main Road or Street to feed the transformer erected for the purpose of Vignesh Hospital, and to pay a sum of Rs.2000/- to the complainant being the damages for the mental agony and expenses incurred by the complainant by way of writing letters to the opposite party. Hence we answer this point (b) is also accordingly. 18. In the result, this complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to remove the High Tension 11 K.V. wires passing over and above the roof of the house of the complainant and to remove the electric pole erected in front of the house of the complainant and also the High Tension line passing over Vallalar Nagar Main Road or street to feed the transformer erected for the purpose of Vignesh Hospital within two months from the date of copy of receipt of this order. 2. The opposite parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards damages for the mental agony and expenses incurred by the complainant by way of writing letters to the opposite parties. 3. and also to a pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of this complaint. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay the above said amounts within one month from the date of copy of receipt of this order, failing which, the complainant is also entitled to interest on the above said sum @ 9 % p.a from the date of default till the date of payment. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 20th day of September 2010. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1 - 28.6.99 - X-copy of the telegram sent to 1st opp party by the Complainant. Ex.A2 – 15.7.99 - X-copy of the letter sent to Junior Engineer TNEB, Tirupattur, by the complainant. Ex.A3- 14.9.99 - X-copy of letter to Chief Engineer, Vellore by complainant with Postal Ack. Of HPO. NO.1061013 dt.15.9.99. Ex.A4- 14.9.99 - X-copy of the letter by complainant to the Vigilance Officer, TNEB, Chennai with Postal Ack. Tirupattur HPO, No.1061231, Dt.15.9.99 Ex.A5- 23.10.99 - X-copy of Deposition of complainant before the Vigilance Office. Ex.A6- 1.11.99 - X-copy of letter to the Chief Engineer, Vellore receipt issued by Professional Courier Service No.041378, dt.2.11.99. Ex.A7- 7.11.99 - X-copy of the Thinamalar issue published by TNEB, in respect of Availing the grievances of electricity consumers under the heading of Thalivar representation. Ex.A8- 19.11.99 - X-copy of the letter sent by the head of Public Relations Office, Chennai. Ex.A9- 23.11.99 - X-copy of the letter from Superintending Engineer, Tirupattur. Ex.A10-3.12.99 - X-copy of the letter to the Chief Engineer, Vellore with courier and Ack. No.064801, dt.3.12.99. Ex.A11- 3.12.99 - X-copy of letter to Thalivar Muraiyeedi Amaippu, Chennai with Courier ack. Letter dt.3.12.99. Ex.A12- 18.11.99 - X-copy of the letter to Chairman TNEB, Chennai-2. Ex.A13- 27.12.99 - X-copy of the letter to Chairman TNEB, Chennai-2. Ex.A14- 20.1.00 - X-copy of the letter from Chairman, TNEB, Chennai. Ex.A15- 3.4.01 - X-copy of letter to Chairman, TNEB, Chennai with courier receipt No.023501, dt.3.4.01. Ex.A16- 7.11.01 - X-copy of the letter to the Superintending Engineer, Tirupattur With Ack. due Tirupattur, HPO, Ack. No.966. Ex.A17- 28.11.01 - X-copy of letter to the Chairman TNEB, with courier Ack. 2803, Dt.28.11.01. Ex.A18- 20.2.01 - X-copy of letter to Chairman, TNEB, with courier receipt No. 023363, dt.20.3.01 with paper cutting “Consumer meeting week, Thinamani Edition, dt.16.2.01. Ex.A19- -- - X-copy of the Plaint in O.S.No.197/99 filed by complainant in District Munsiff Court, Tirupattur. Ex.A20- -- - X-copy of Petition in I.A.697/2001 filed in the above suit to Withdraw the same by the complainant. Ex.A21- -- - X-copy of the Sketch by the complainant. Ex.A22- 20.6.02 - X-copy of Petition and the order passed in I.A.No.697/01 in O.S.No.197/99 DMC, Tirupattur. Opposite parties’ Exhibits: Ex.B1 - -- - X-copy of the Sketch. Ex.B2- -- - X-copy of Written Statement of EB in O.S.No.197/99 Tirupatthur. Ex.B3- -- - X-copy of Entries to show HT line in existence. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [ Hon'ble Tmt G.Malarvizhi, B.E] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT[ Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER | | 
