DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 28th day of April 2023
Filed on: 04/06/2018
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member
C.C.No.234/2018.
COMPLAINANT
K. Purushan, Charuta, Kanayannur, Eruveli West Chotanikara 682312, Ernakulam.
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTIES
1) Asst.Executive Engineer, KSEB, Chottanikkara Section, Chottanikkara P.O. 682312.
(o.p1 rep. by Adv.Lakshmi S.)
2) K.S.E.B. represented by The Chairman, Vydyuthi Bhavanam, Pattom P.O. Thiruvananthapuram-695004.
(o.p rep. by Adv.K.N.Radhakrishnan, Standing Counsel KSEB)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President.
1) A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under Section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that electricity was required for the purpose of construction the house of the complainant's daughter. For that purpose, in the month of August 2015, the complainant submitted an application to the first opposite party. On 12.08.2015, on their instruction, Rs 6150 was paid on the basis of which the 1st opposite party informed the complainant that a support post was required as there was no electricity post near where the house was to be constructed. But amount paid by the complainant for the post was not used by the first opposite party for this purpose. Instead, the connection was made using GI pipe purchased by the complainant. Towards the end of 2015, the first opposite party installed a new post to supply electricity to a house near the complainant's house. This post is only eight meters away from the complainant's house. As there is another post near the complainant's house, the support post is no longer required for electricity connection. Therefore, although the complaint was made to the first and second opposite parties that the amount paid by the complainant for the support post may be returned or adjusted in the future bill, no further action was taken. The complainant also lodged a complaint with the Electricity Vigilance Department. The complainant had approached the Commission seeking an order directing the opposite parties to refund Rs 6,150 paid by the complainant for the post along with interest and the cost of litigation.
2. Notice
Notices were issued from the Commission to the opposite parties. The opposite parties received the notice. The opposite parties filed their version.
3.The version of the opposite parties.
The Consumer No. 1155517028493 is a domestic electric connection issued to Smt. Ajitha, Charutha (H) Kanayannoor, Eruveli West, Chottanikkara on 17.08.2015 under Electrical section, Chottanikkara after remitting the cost of OYEC amount of Rs. 6150/- and cash Deposit of Rs. 2000/-. The cost of supply involves the cost of a support post and W/P service connection. At the time of giving the temporary electric connection for construction purpose due to the unavailability of electric post for avoiding the delay in giving the service connection as per the request and willing of the consumer, the service connection was affected to the complainant with a temporary arrangement using a GI pipe which was arranged by the consumer himself with his own interest and thereby availing the electric connection at the earliest. The service connection to the complainant a support post was necessary because of two reasons. (1) The service connection could be affected only by crossing a road (3.5 Meter width) having transportation of all types of four-wheeler vehicles including heavy vehicles. Hence the weather proof service wire should be supported by erecting a support post in the opposite side of the road and there by maintaining the required safe clearance for the easy transport of vehicles so as to avoid the accidents (2) For avoiding property crossing of the neighbour of the complainant while giving the service connection. It is submitted that as indicated by the complainant himself the existing post was within 35 Meters of his house and that was within the permissible limit of a W/P service connection. The understanding of the complainant that the supporting post inserted while giving the service connection was due to the distance of his house to the existing post is not correct and against the facts. It was only because of the safety reasons that arose due to the road crossing of whether proof service wire without a support post and avoiding the property crossing of his neighbour. The reason stated by the complainant for the demand of refunding the cash deposit for the support post was the existence at a new electric post near his house which was erected for giving electric connection to another consumer and there is no need of a support post to the service connection already effected to him is not correct and is a mis-understanding now only one of the reasons of inserting the support post was eliminated by the errection of a new electric post while giving service connection to another consumer by extending the already existed service line. The other reason of the installation of the support post was still existing there is because of the safety reasons which arose by the road crossing of the service wire in a low angle from a height of 6 meters, of the existing line to a height of 3 meters (including the height of the service pipe) to the metering board of the complainant. In addition to this the house of the complainant is situated in a lower level (about 1 meter) from the road level. The KSEB inserted a support post after his demand of refunding the amount he has deposited for the support post is deliberate and blocking his request is not correct and against the facts of the case. The temporary arrangement was done for doing a favour to the consumer using a GI pipe as per his request and willingness in his own expenses for effecting the service connection urgently. A supporting post is necessary for the service effected to the complainant for safety reasons now also and the acts of KSEB . In this regard is legal as per the rules and the arguments of the consumer having no grounds and these matters were already communicated to him personally. In this circumstance the demand raised by the complainant is illegal.
4) . Evidence
The complainant had filed a Proof affidavit and 7 documents that were marked as Exhibits-A-1 and A-7.
Exhibit A-1. Copy the cash receipt issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant dated 12.08.2015.
Exhibit A-2. Copy of the application sent to the 1st opposite
Exhibit A-3. Copy of the application sent to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant dated 30.06.2016.
Exhibit A-4. Copy of the application sent to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant dated 14.10.2016.
Exhibit A-5. Copy of the reply sent by the Dy. Chief Engineer, KSEB dated 14.12.2016.
Exhibit A-6. Copy of the complaint sent to the Vigilance Officer, KSEB by the complainant dated 09-01-2017.
Exhibit A-7. Copy of the complaint sent to the Minister for electricity by the complainant dated 09-01-2017.
5) The main points to be analysed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
6) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant produced copy of the cash receipt issued by the first opposite party to the complainant (Exhibit A-1). This document revealed that the complainant had paid the requisite consideration for the service to the opposite parties. Therefore, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (point No.i) goes against the opposite parties.
The amount for supporting post was paid to the opposite parties to get temporary electricity connection to the complainant's house. But the opposite parties provided temporary electricity connection at the G.I post provided by the complainant without erecting the said post. Later there was no need to erect this post. The complainant alleged that the reluctance on the part of the opposite parties to refund Rs. 6,150 to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practices.
The complainant submitted that the amount paid by the complainant for the post was not used by the first opposite party. The connection was made using GI pipe purchased by the complainant. Towards the end of 2015, the first opposite party installed a new post to supply electricity to a house near the complainant's house. This post is only eight meters away from the complainant's house. As there is another post near the complainant's house, the support post is no longer required for electricity connection.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that the house of the complainant is situated in a lower level (about 1 meter) from the road level. So, the major reason for installation of the support post is the safety of the men and vehicles passing through the road. A circular was issued by Chief Engineer Distribution Cental based on the accident occurred on 27.2.2019 and 24.5.19 at Ambalapuzha and vazhakulam due to WP support failure. Vide Circular letter Number CE(DC) AE14/CIRCULAR/2019-20/847 DATED 28.05.2019 of CE, order has been released not to use GI pipe as WP support as the above accidents are occurred due to the same. So, works can be done only after considering the safety aspects and the said work has been done according to the standard of performances KSEBL.A support post is necessary for effecting service connection. In this regards demand raised by the complainant is against the standard of performance of KSEBL and illegal.
The complainant had produced a copy of the reply sent by the Dy. Chief Engineer, KSEB dated 14.12. 2016.This letter can be quoted here:
“Please refer to your complaint dated 14.10.16 addressed to the Chairman, KSEBL. The Asst. Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Chottanikkara, reported that there was shortage of posts when you applied for electric connection for construction purpose and hence supply was given to you by inserting a G. I. Pipe instead of support post. When posts became available, it was installed near your premises to avoid property crossing. It is also reported that the amount of Rs. 6150/- remitted by you was as per the original estimate for the service connection with support post and the work is carried out as per the original estimate and hence there is no amount for refund.”
It is clear from the documents produced by the complainant and from the version of the opposite parties that the amount was not used by the opposite parties for the purpose for which the complainant paid the money to the opposite party. No evidence to the contrary has been adduced by the opposite parties. In this case, the amount collected from the consumer should be refunded.
This illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified act of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service, indulgence in unfair trade practice, and caused mental agony and physical harassment to the complainant. The opposite parties had inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the opposite parties in failing to provide the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
We find the issue Nos. (II), (III) and (IV) are found in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite parties. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The Opposite Parties shall refund Rs.6,150/- to the complainant towards the amount paid by him as per Exhibit A-1 cash receipt.
- Opposite Parties shall pay Rs.4000/- as compensation for the loss and mental agony and physical hardships sustained by the complainant.
- The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant Rs. 3000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. Failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @9% from the date of receipt of a copy of this order till the date of realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this 28th day of April 2023
Sd/-
D.B.Binu President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia TN., Member
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s Evidence
Exhibit A-1. Copy the cash receipt issued by the 1st opposite party to the complainant dated 12.08.2015.
Exhibit A-2. Copy of the application sent to the 1st opposite Exhibit A-3. Copy of the application sent to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant dated 30.06.2016.
Exhibit A-4. Copy of the application sent to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant dated 14.10.2016.
Exhibit A-5. Copy of the reply sent by the Dy. Chief Engineer, KSEB dated 14.12.2016.
Exhibit A-6. Copy of the complaint sent to the Vigilance Officer, KSEB by the complainant dated 09-01-2017.
Exhibit A-7. Copy of the complaint sent to the Minister for electricity by the complainant dated 09-01-2017.
