H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA

Appeal No. 216/2006.

Date of Decision 10.3.2009.

1. HP State Electricity Board, through its

Secretary, Kumar House, Shimla-4.,



2. Executive Engineer, HPSEB Division Gohar,

office at VPO Gohar, Distt. Mandi, HP.,



3. Assistant Executive Engineer, HPSEB (E) Sub Division

Pandoh, Distt. Mandi, HP.



……..Appellants.

Versus



Nand Lal S/o Sh. Mani Ram Sharma, R/o VPO Pandoh,

Tehsil Sadar, Distt. Mandi, HP.



…….Respondent.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel, President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekher Sharma, Member.



Whether Approved for reporting? No.



For the Appellants. Mr. B.S. Ranjan, Advocate with

Mr. D.K. Thakur, Assistant Engineer

Electrical Sub Division, Pandoh.



For the Respondent. Mr. Uttam Singh Thakur, Advocate with

Mr. Nand Lal Sharma, respondent who has been identified as such by Mr. Thakur.





O R D E R:



Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) President (Oral)



Appellants are aggrieved from the following order passed by District Forum Mandi, in Consumer Complaint No. 183/2005 passed on 18.4.2006:-

“In view of the foregoing reasons, this complaint succeeds and the same is allowed. Consequently, the opposite parties are directed to shift the pole from the existing site after preparation of estimate and realization of the shifting charges from the complainant within two months from today and also to pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of harassment and costs of litigation. The complaint stands disposed of accordingly.”



2. Case as set out in the complaint by the respondent was, that he approached the appellants for shifting of L.T. electricity line that was existing adjacent to his house as it was causing permanent obstruction for opening one outer door of his house. Needful was done by the appellants according to respondent. However as a result of shifting of the pole it was observed by him, that the height of the electricity lines over roof of his house was only about 3-4 feet. Thus there was permanent danger to human life. Thereafter he again approached the authorities of the Board, the then Excise Minister of the State and also the Deputy Commissioner for shifting of the line. Copies of these communications are placed on the record Annexure C-3 to C-6.

3. When no action was taken by the appellants, respondent filed Complaint No. 183/2005. When put to notice appellants resisted and contested the complaint. Main thrust of their defence was, that pole had been shifted as per law on the demand of the respondent by the appellants. And the shifting of this pole again was objected to by the local people who refused to provide the land. Spot was inspected as per direction of the District Forum below by the staff of the appellants. This position is again reiterated by them.

4. District Forum below after taking note of the entire factual situation has allowed the complaint and relief in the aforesaid terms has been granted in favour of the respondent and against the appellants. Hence this appeal.

5. Mr. Ranjan learned counsel for the appellants submitted that his clients have no objection regarding shifting of the pole in question, but it is not possible to do so, nor is it technically feasible. In addition to the stiff opposition by the locals. In this behalf he laid great emphasis on Annexure R-9 placed on file along with their reply by his clients.

6. This argument on the face of it, as well as in the light of the relief granted vide impugned order has no merit. Reason being that the impugned order only directs the appellants to shift the pole from the existing site after preparing the estimates and after realizing the shifting charges within 2 months. In this behalf we may clarify that the respondent cannot insist that the pole should be shifted either beyond the land owned by him or on the property of someone else.

7. At the time of hearing Mr. Thakur on behalf of the respondent as per instructions received from his client who is present in person stated at the bar, that abutting his client’s house-land there is public path, existing pole can easily be shifted appropriately on this public path in accordance with law. And if it is not possible, then the same may be shifted at the boundary of his clients’ land. This stand in our opinion on behalf of the respondent is most reasonable and just. It is a matter of common knowledge that electricity poles are also affixed by the appellants on the sides of the public roads/paths wherever it is so feasible. Here the stand on behalf of the respondent again assumes significance which we reiterate at the risk of repetition.

8. Above all, it is not the case of the appellants that there is any prohibition and or other legal impediment in the shifting of the pole as per rules governing the same. Only argument put-forth by Mr. Ranjan was that looking to the topographical situation at the spot it is not feasible. This argument is also being noted to be rejected in the face of the report of the Local Commissioner appointed by the District Forum below whose detailed report is there on the file at pages 91 to 98 of the complaint file. No doubt this was also seriously disputed by Mr. Ranjan. However, we find that the reasons given while accepting the report in the impugned order are cogent and call for no interference.

9. No other point is urged.

In view of the aforesaid discussion we find no substance in this appeal, accordingly the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith. Period of two months for complying with the directions contained in the order of District Forum below as extracted hereinabove shall commence from 1.4.2009.

Mr. Ranjan has undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules, and the office is directed to send the same in the like manner to Mr. Uttam Singh Thakur Advocate, District Courts, Mandi as was prayed for by the respondent himself.



Shimla.

10th March, 2009. (Justice Arun Kumar Goel) Retd.

/K/ President.





(Saroj Sharma)

Member.



(Chander Shekher Sharma)

Member.