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

PRESENT

BEENA GOPINATH. S : CHAIR PERSON

LEKHARANI R : MEMBER

ROBIN PETER : MEMBER

OP No.102/2020-21

PETITIONER :

Smt. Fekruvinte Kandathile Purayil Selma, Azeemas, Vadakkumbad,Ramanthali, Vadakkumbad P.O,Payyannur Taluk, District-670309.

RESPONDENTS :

1. Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Payyannur, -670307.

2. Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section, Ramanthali, Kannur District-670309. ORDER

Case of the Petitioner:- The petitioner, Smt. Fekruvinte Kandathile Purayil Selma, W/o Aboobecker U.T, Ramanthali, Vadakkumbad, Payyannur, Kannur district, comes under the jurisdiction of Electrical section Ramanthali complaints that she is under grave apprehension on account of others drawing electrical connections including weather proof wire trespassing her property.

The complainant states that she is having 23 cents of landed property under R.S No.32/1 and 44/110 of Ramanthali village which is situated in the immediate eastern side of panchayath tar road namely Kuruvanthatta-Anganad road. From the eastern boundary of said property, the properties of one Marsoona C.M, w/o Yasir and property of Ruksana C.M, D/o Shahul Hameed are situated. Years back the above said Marsoona approached the complainant and requested a path way to her property from the panchayath tar road to her property. Accordingly the complainant consented a portion of her property having a width of 6 feet in northern side of her property for ingress and egress to the property of Marsoona. Even though the complainant has constructed a small boundary wall in northern side of the said path way, the complainant is possessing the same along with her property as per her title deed. The complainant has given only a consent to use the said portion as a pathway to the said Marsoona.

The property of Ruksana C.M, is situated in the immediate southern side of the said property of Marsoona. Marsoona has obtained electricity connection years back. She has drawn cable wire from the service post situated at the property of one Rafeek which is situated in

2 the eastern side of the property. Now it is understood that the above said Ruksana C.M. has applied for a new electricity connection before KSEB Ramanthali and the authority approached the complainant to draw the electric wire situated in the northern side of the complainant’s property.

It is submitted that from the electric post to the house of Smt. Ruksana there is a length of 126 meters. Apart from that there are valuable agricultural improvement from that side also. It is submitted that from the service post already existed and situates at the property of Rafeek, there is hardly 70 meters to the house of Smt. Ruksana. That is the convenient and least inconvenience and most feasible way for a connection to the above said Smt. Ruksana. When the complainant noticed the above facts to the authorities they were not ready to note the above facts. Apart from that they threatened this complainant that they will draw a new connection towards the property of the complainant without the consent of the complainant at any cost. Immediately after that the complainant’s husband Sri. U. T. Aboobacker preferred a complaint before the Assistant Executive Engineer KSEB Payyannur vide dated 01/12/2020 at about 9am the electricity authorities again approached the complainant and threatened that they will draw the electric wire within 2 days.

It is submitted that she has not given any consent to the authorities to draw electric connection to wards her property. They could easily draw the wire from the property of Rafeek to the house of Ruksana. There is no valuable improvements or agricultural products in the said property. If the electric wire is drawn towards the complainant’s property, the complainant will be put to irreparable injuries and hardships.

3 Therefore it is humbly prayed to pass the following orders. a) To restrain the electricity authority Ramanthali from trespassing in to the property of the complainant and to draw any electricity wire including weather proof wire towards the property of complainant. b) Direction may be given to the electricity authority to draw electric connection to the applicant Ruksana from the property of Rafeek, situated in the eastern side of the property of Ruksana.

Version by the Respondent:- The petitioner residing at Vadakkumbad under electrical section Ramanthaly has clear boundary wall for her property. Smt. Ruksana residing behind the property of the petitioner at the eastern boundary has been applied for the service connection. There is a pathway towards her plot where the service connection can be effected without disturbing the property of the petitioner. Accordingly the estimate prepared by providing LT ABC for the OH portion. In the meantime Sri. U.T. Abbobacker launched the complaint to the section office as well as in the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer tha the pathway is his property. Reply to the complaint was given by the Assistant Engineer but he was not willing to sign the copy. It is not true that the license approached the petitioner regarding the service connection. On receiving the complaint inspected the site and tried to convince the fact but he started shouting like any thing while seeing the applicant on the way outside his boundary.

The service connection has been effected from the existing pole on the road at point A there is only a distance of 62 m towards the applicant property through the path way. ABC cable of 30 m drawn

4 through the pathway after erecting a pole at B&C without disturbing the property of the complainant from there a length of 32 m wp wire to the applicant property through the pathway.

It is not true that KSEB authority approached the complainant in connection with the above said service connection. Also it is not true that from the existing post there is 126 m length to the house of Ruksana and valuable agricultural improvement in that side. Aslo it is not true that KSEB authorities threatened the complainant and not replied to the complaint given to this office. Reply dated 16/12/2020 given by the Assistant Engineer as per the direction of this office and he was accepted but not willing to sign in the copy.

It is true that he has not given the consent, but it is kindly be that the electric connection to Smt. Ruksana has drawn not through his property but through the path way outside his boundary wall.

Discussion, analysis and findi ngs : -

The hearing of the case was conducted on 22.1.2021 through call conference. The petitioner’s representative and respondent attended 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 point of allegation raised by the petitioner is that the LT line for giving connection to her neighbor Smt.Ruksana was drawn through a path way which is in possession of the petitioner, without her consent and ignoring her objections.

5 The petitioner argued that there exists another shortest route for giving connection to Smt.Ruksana. The respondent has not furnished a satisfying answer to the point whether they ensured the path through which the line drawn is private or not. The alternate route suggested by the petitioner is not acceptable as it requires consent letter from the property owners, states the respondent.

Even though Section 42 of Electricity Act 2003 empowers the licensee to develop and maintain distribution system in his area of supply. In accordance with provisions contained in the Act, the Apex Court held that the right to get electric connection does not include right to draw line or erect poles on third party property without consent of the owner ( law 193).

As per the sketch attached the supply can be effected to the applicant Smt.Ruksana after drawing 16 m LT line, 21m Weather Proof wire instead of 29m LT line and 31m weather proof wire, which route the licensee selected for giving the connection. As per the statements both of the routes are crossing private property.

The petitioner also alleged that the LT line using ABC was drawn very close to his building complex.

It is also noted that the petitioner has filed a complaint before this Forum on 11.12.2020, and the service connection was seen effected on 21.12.2020, i.e. after registering the complaint in the Forum as OP No.102/2020-21 and intimating the same to the respondent on 15.12.2020.

6 As per regulation 86(3) of KESC 2014, the licensee will not be held responsible for delay,if any, due to reasons noted. The regulation is reproduced as here under:-

The licensee shall not be held responsible for delay,if any,in extending supply if the same is on account of problems relating to right of way or acquisition of land or court order or any delay on

account of causes or force majeure conditions, over which the licensee has no reasonable control.

The respondent in this case did not consider any such aspects or totally ignored the rules and regulations and done the work thinking that they were vested with powers to do so.

The erecting of posts and drawing line through a private path without obtaining even oral consent is a kind of trespassing and it is an infringement on the right of the petitioner.

Considering the above facts the Forum is of the opinion that the respondent shall take action to shift the line from the close proximity of the petitioner’s compound wall/building by suitable means which cause least inconvenience to him.

The request of the petitioner to shift the line to the opposite side of the path way can be entertained by the licensee if it is technically feasible.

The respondent is ordered to carry out the shifting work as stated above at their own expenses in any feasible way which cause least

7 obstruction to the petitioner within 60 days of this order and report compliance to the Forum.

The petition is disposed off accordingly.

DECISION:- 1. The petition is allowed. 2. The respondent shall carry out the work as ordered above. Dated this the 5 th day of Feb 2021 Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- Robin Peter Lekharani R Beena Gopinath S. Member Member Chairperson Endt.on CGRF-NR/OP /102/2020-21 /317 dated : 05.2.2021

If the petitioner is not satisfied with the above order of Forwarded to: this Forum, he is at liberty to prefer appeal before 1) Smt.Selma FKP, Azeemas, State Electricity Ombudsman, Charangattu Bhavan Ramanthali,Vadakkumbad, Building No.34/895,Mamangalam,Anchumana Road, Vadakkumbad P.O, Edapally,-682024 (Ph: 04842346488) Payyannur,,Kannur-670002. within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.

2) The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, KSEB Ltd, Payyannur, Kannur District. Copy submitted to: Chief Engineer (Distribution – ), Kannur Copy to: 1. The Secretary, KSEB Ltd., Vydyuthibhavanam, . 2. Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, . 3. The Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, Payyannur. 4. The Assistant Engineer, Forwarded Electrical Section Ramanthali, Sd/- KSEB Ltd., Kannur District. Chairperson

8