CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM NORTHERN REGION, . (Formed under section 42(5) of Electricity Act 2003.) Vydyuthibhavan, Gandhi Road, Kozhikode -673011 Telephone Number -0495 2367820 [email protected]

PRESENT

BEENA GOPINATH. S : CHAIRPERSON R. LEKHA RANI : MEMBER II ROBIN PETER : MEMBER III

OP NO.43/2019-20

PETITIONER :-

1. Sri.Abdul Salam Haji, Madakkara, , Thuruthi - P.O., – 671351. RESPONDENTS :-

1. Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, KSEB Ltd, , District.

2. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEB Ltd., Pilicode, .

ORDER Case of the Petitioner:-

The Petitioner Sri. A.P.Abdul Salam Haji, Cheruvathur Panchayath, Kasargod comes under ES Pilicode complaints that an HT post is erected very close to his building causing danger. The petitioner wishes to build the upper storey but the live line adjacent to the vicinity becomes an impediment. It is quite natural that the staff, workers and the merchants are scared of electric line. It is further alleged that the stay wire is firmly attached to the nearby pillar which is meant for the construction of first floor. This act of irresponsibility of the licensee cannot be justified. It can be very well seen that railway did not provide statutory clearance. Still the licensee drew the HT line without the consent of the party. The request of the petitioner is to take necessary action to remove the line so that the construction of the upstairs can be started at an early date.

Version by the respondent;-

The AEE inspected the site and his version is as follows. As mentioned in the complaint there is no stay wire tied to the pillar of the second floor under construction. The mentioned electric pole in the petition of Sri. Abdulsalam Haji is situated at 70cms away from the tarring portion of the Cheruvathur railway station road. This pole stands in between two railway over bridge (ROB) boundary stones. These mile stones are 180cms away from the tarring portion of the Cheruvathur railway station road. The portion of the road passes through the east and south boundary of the property of Sri. Abdul Salam Haji is under the property of the railway. This pole stands 13 mtrs away from the ROB

2

marked railway stone of one side and 12mtrs distance from other side of railway stone along the road. Hence it is obvious that at present this electric pole stands inside the property of the railway. This mentioned electric pole is inserted in the existing HT/LT line between two PSC poles at the time of construction of railway over bridge during the period of 2013-14 for maintaining statutory clearance. Due to railway over bridge present there, the portion of the line which passes through the south side of the property of Sri. Abdulsalam Haji is not possible to shift to the opposite side of the road. He personally requested to Sri. Abdulsalam Haji to produce EYE SKETCH of the land after the acquirer of his land by railway for constructing railway over bridge for proving his stand. He produced a Photostat copy of the eye sketch and deed of his land before railway acquire the land. It is not clear the present situation from these produced documents.

Discussion, analysis and findings:-

Hearing of the case was convened on 26/07/2019. Both the petitioner and the respondent was present in the hearing.

Having considered all the documents submitted and the deliberations during the hearing, the forum has come to the following conclusions leading to the decision;-

The main point of allegation raised by the petitioner is that 11 KV line is drawn above the partially constructed first floor of a shop owned by him. An HT post is also installed in his property un authorizedly for drawing the line. The petitioner argues that the line was drawn 3 years

3

ago connected with ROB construction and the shop is under his possession from 1996 onwards. At the time of drawing the line the shop building is in the same stage of construction ie. Pillars only constructed for first floor and the line passes close to the pillar without statutory clearance. The petitioner has not raised any objection at the time of line drawal because the authorities of the licensee assured him that the post will be shifted from that position within two months.

The version of the respondent is that the post installed close to the shop is not situated in the property of the petitioner as the land is later acquired by railway. The sketch procured for verification is an old one before acquiring the land by railway authorities for ROB construction.

The latest sketch of the land issued by concerned revenue authorities to be obtained for ascertaining the fact. Here the post and the land in which the post is erected stands as second priority only and the first priority is to be given to the matter whether the disputed HT line, which the petitioner wants to shift away from his property, was drawn without observing statutory safety clearance or not.

As per the statement of the respondent, there exists no statutory clearance between the line and building and it is suggested by the respondent during hearing that it is possible to shift the line by inserting a new post and then there will be enough clearance between the line and building.

The demand of the petitioner to shift the line is irrelevant in this case, for the licensee to act upon since the building existed there at the time of stringing the line. 4

The CEA regulation 2010(measures relating to safety and electric supply) section 61 clearly specifies the statutory clearances to be maintained by the licensee. It is strange to note that the licensee is not maintaining the statutory clearance at the time of line construction and still operating the line and feeding power and further asks the consumer to provide land sketch.

It is proved beyond doubt, that at the time of construction of the line itself, no statutory vertical clearance existed as the line passes above the building (partially constructed first floor).

Here KSEBL is required to take urgent action to maintain statutory clearance between the buildings and the line by proper shifting incorporating the present ground realities of the location, either by providing new post or by any suitable means the licensee may deem fit at the expenses of the licensee itself.

The petition is disposed off accordingly.

DECISION:-

1. Petition is allowed. 2. The licensee may take urgent steps to maintain statutory clearance at the locations and the completion of work to be done within 60 days of receipt of the order.

Dated this the 29th day of August, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Robin Peter R .Lekharani. Beena Gopinath.S Member III Member II Chairperson.

Endt.on CGRF-NR /OP 43/ 2019-20 /325 /28/8/2019

5

Forwarded to: 1) Sri.Abdul Salam Haji, Madakkara,Cheruvathur, Thuruthi – P.O., Kasaragod – 671351.

2) The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, KSEB Ltd, Pilicode, . Copy submitted to: -

Chief Engineer (Distribution – North), Kozhikode.

Copy to: 1. The Secretary, KSEB Ltd., Vydyuthibhavanam, . 2. Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Kasaragod 3. The Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, , KSEB Ltd, Kasaragod District Forwarded 4. The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Pilicode, Sd/- KSEB Ltd, Kasaragod District. Chairperson.

6