• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

1 CONSUMER GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL FORUM CENTRAL REGION (Formed under Section 42(5) of the Electricity Act 2003) 220 kV Substation Compound, HMT Colony P.O. Kalamassery, Pin – 683 503 Phone No. 0484-2556500 Website: cgrf.kseb.in, Email: [email protected], CUG No. 9496008719 Present (1) Smt.Soudamini B Chairperson (2) Smt. S.N.Sheeba. Member (3) Sri. Jefrin Manuel Member Petitioner Smt. Sreedevi. N.K, Sreepadmam, Oorakkad, Edathala P.O., Aluva, Pin – 683 561. Respondent 1) The Asst.Exe. Engineer, Electrical Sub Division, Kizhakkambalam 2) The Asst. Engineer, Electrical Section, KSEBL, Edathala. ======================================================== No.CGRF-CR/OP No.28/2020-21/314 Date :14-12-2020 O R D E R Background of the case: The petitioner, Smt.Sreedevi N.K., Sreepadmam (H), Oorakkad, Edathala P.O., Aluva – 683561, is a consumer under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, Edathala. The complainant states that she along with her 85 year old mother reside at the house with Re-survey No.-126/1 under Kizhakkambalam Village. The petitioner states that during 1977, they got their electric connection and had stretched an electric line through their property to give electric connection to the area of Pookkottumolam. There was no road on that area during that time. Now the father of the petitioner has partitioned his land and the electric line passes through the land which the petitioner got possessed through partition deed. The petitioner claims that the line passes through in a very highly accidental prone manner and that there is no sufficient ground clearance for the above said 2 electric line (only 2 meters height). The petitioner also states that it has been years since the area of Pookkottumolam has been developed, road has been constructed and electric lines had been established on that area. Now the line passing through the petitioner’s premises is for 4 – 5 houses only. Thus the petitioner demands to give electric connection to those houses from the electric lines on the area of Pookkottumolam thereby reducing the transmission loss to a huge extend. The petitioner states that she approached the Electrical Section, Edathala and gave an application regarding the same and on that basis, Sri.Shyam, Overseer, from that office inspected the site; but no further action was taken from that end. The petitioner also states that, on 29-07-2020, due to the heavy rain and wind, two trees of the petitioner’s neighbor fell to the above said electric line and still it has not removed. Thus the electric post of this electric line is in a very dangerous situation. The petitioner states that about 20 ladies were there in the plot while all these happened and that a great disaster got avoided just because the electric post slanted towards the coconut tree and the electric line was not broken. Thus the petitioner contacted the KSEB office and thus the electric connections through this electric line got shifted to another electric line near by their area. The petitioner states that the above incidents make clear that the electric line stretched over her property is not needed. The petitioner thus demands to dismantle or stretch-out the electric line from her property. The petitioner also points out to take a look on the similar verdict of Honorable High Court, Kerala vide WP© No.11741/2015 dated 05-06-2015. Subsequently, statement of facts was called for and the same was submitted by the respondent on 12-10-2020. The Forum afforded an opportunity to hear the Petitioner and Respondent on 17-11-2020. Both the petitioner and the respondent were present for hearing. Version of the Respondent: The respondent states that Smt.Sreedevi N.K., Sreepadmam (H), Oorakkad, Edathala P.O., Aluva – 683561, is a consumer under the jurisdiction of Electrical Section, Edathala. The respondent argues that the complaint is not 3 maintainable either in law or on facts and that the complaint is barred by Section 17 (2) of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 which states that “if the telegraph authority omits to comply with the requisition, the person making it may apply to the District Magistrate within whose jurisdiction the property is situated to order the removal or alteration”. Honorable High Court also reiterated the above in WPC 11741/2015 as “all that the petitioner wants is to shift the post and the electricity supply line to the public road flowing adjacent. That is a matter to be decided by the Additional District Magistrate on the basis of the relevant inputs”. The respondent states that the disputed line, which is a three phase line, is drawn from the electric post CP-41situated in the Pukkattupady – Chemmalappady Road and this line crossed the property of the complainant near to her house. The said line does not have enough statutory ground clearance and is about 2.5m high from the compound wall and is about 45m in length, which is in a highly dangerous condition. The premise through which the above mentioned line passes through belongs to the complainant and the land is about 5m deep and thus has sufficient statutory ground clearance at that portion. A service connection is given from the above mentioned line to Sri.Pappy Kuriyaco, Aathikaran, Oorakkad, Vilangu, with Consumer Number – 10086 for agriculture purpose from the electric post number CP-41/1 and the date of connection is seen as 06-03-1978, as per the available records. The above said electric line, thus continues as single phase line and crosses a field and stretches to Pukkattumolam area for electricity distribution. Now this is a dead line and has been interlinked with another transformer at Pukkattumolam area. The respondent state that, as the electric line passing through the property of the petitioner is used for giving electricity supply to Sri.Pappy Kuriyaco, this electric line cannot be dismantled. But, as the line passing through the field is a dead line, it can be dismantled. Moreover, by installing an electric post in the premises of the petitioner, the dangerous situation in the premises can be avoided and the expense for this can be met by the licensee. 4 Analysis and findings: Having examined the petition in detail and the statement of facts of the respondent, considering all the facts and circumstances in detail and perusing all the documents of both sides, the Forum comes to the following observations, conclusions and decisions thereof. On evaluating the statements of both the parties, the Forum finds that a three phase line is existing in the premises owned by the petitioner from post No. CP-41 to post No. CP-41/1 (A to B in the sketch). Thereafter the petitioner constructed a building and the respondent states that there is adequate clearance existing between the line and the building. But one compound wall was also constructed beneath the electric line and there is not sufficient clearance between the line and compound wall. This is against CEA Reg. 2010 – Sec. 60 (measures relating to safety and electric supply). As per the complaint of petitioner, this three phase line ends at Post No. CP41/1 from where a service connection is given to Cons. No.10086 for agricultural purpose. But there is no agricultural activity ongoing in this premise for the past few years and this post as well as the service connection shall be dismantled so that the line through her property can be dismantled. The petitioner has furnished a document received from the Agricultural Department stating that “since the original consumer was demised, the LT-5 connection is not included in the free electricity connection scheme of Krishi Bhavan”. Under this circumstance, the removal of this line shall be a solution to the complaint of the petitioner. The petitioner added that there is an alternate line route existing through paddy field which is a live line from which the supply to the agriculture connection bearing Cons. No.10086 can be effected. The petitioner made it clear that she will not permit to carry out the suggestion put forward by the respondent to erect one more post in her property so as to confirm adequate safety clearance. The respondent stated that the existing line through the paddy field is not a live line and therefore the alternate route suggested by the petitioner is not 5 feasible. As far as the agriculture consumer desire to retain the connection, it is not possible to disconnect or dismantle the same without the concurrence of the consumer. The only solution is to carry out the maintenance works of the line passing through the petitioner’s property so as to ensure safety clearance. The Forum analyze that the petitioner had not sought the permission of the licensee to construct the compound wall under the existing line which is against the safety rules. Also the respondent did not notice the construction violating the safety rules and did not take any steps to prohibit the construction. This led to the controversy of the issue. However, as the matter is related to the safety aspects as contemplated in the CEA Reg. 2010 – Sec. 60 (measures relating to safety and electric supply), the Forum finds that it is essential to carry out the necessary maintenance works in this disputed line route. The argument of the respondent that the case is not coming under the jurisdiction of the Forum could not be proved with supporting documents by the respondent. The Forum evaluates that the agriculture connection granted to Cons. No.10086 is not having any consumption, which is evident from the Meter Reading Register provided by the respondent for the period from 23-07-2015 to 12/2020.

Load more

  8

Copy Link