State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hans Raj Arora vs Pspcl & Anrs. on 3 March, 2016
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.747 of 2013
Date of Institution: 09.07.2013.
Date of Decision : 03.03.2016.
Hans Raj Arora R/o 38, SST Nagar, Sunder Nagar Scheme, Near
Shiva Temple, Patiala.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. PSPCL, Lower Mall Patiala, through its CMD and
2. SDO (Sub-Division West), Patiala.
.....Respondents/opposite parties
First appeal against order dated
04.06.2013 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Patiala.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri H.S. Guram, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Alankar Arora, Advocate For the respondents : Sh. Y.P. Khullar, Advocate ................................................... J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Aggrieved by impugned order dated 04.06.2013 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Patiala (in short the "District Forum"), the appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint). The District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant and the instant appeal has been preferred against the same by the complainant, now appellant.
2. The complainant has filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against First Appeal No.747 of 2013 2 the OPs on the averments that he has been using the electric meter connection from 1999 at his house and is consumer of OPs. It was further averred that naked wires of electric line were neither passing nearby complainant's house nor the poles of electric line were fixed/present nearby thereto at the time of construction of his house. On 02.09.2011, contractor Sher Singh of PSPCL Patiala changed the line of electric wires near the house of complainant and he objected to the same, as it has been clear violation of Rule 96 of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956. As per Rules 79 and 80 of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, "LT line must be kept horizontal clearance of 1.2 meter= 4.5 feet from building horizontal clearance in case of LT lines, 1.2 meter in case of HT line upto and include 11,000 Volt 2.0 meter from the building". Rules 79 & 80 have been flouted because a child could touch the naked wires of electric line. The complainant approached OPs and they assured him that naked wires would be covered with PVC pipes at the costs of the OPs. The complainant moved OP no.2 for keeping the naked power supply line away from his house on 15.11.2011, but no action has been taken by OPs. The complainant further stated that his requests and complaints went unheeded by the OPs in this regard. It was further averred that electric lines were not insulated near the house of the complainant, as required under Section 96 of Electricity Rules, 1956. The complainant served legal notice dated 10.12.2013 upon OPs, but to no effect. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint against OPs praying that OPs be directed to keep the naked power supply wires of electric line away at least 4.5 feet from the house of complainant First Appeal No.747 of 2013 3 to avoid any untoward incident. The complainant has also prayed for litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment.
3. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant by taking preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant has not come with clean hands in District Forum and he has no cause of action to file the complaint. On merits, it was averred that complainant has not mentioned the account number of electricity connection, as such he is not consumer under the Act. It was denied that naked wires were installed after the commencement of the construction of the complainant's house. It was further averred that poles and wires were in existence prior to construction. It was admitted that on 02.09.2011, contractor Sher Singh changed the wires of electric line near the house of the complainant. It was denied that OP no.2 assured the complainant for covering the naked wires with PVC pipes. It was submitted that complainant asked OP no.2 to keep the electric line away from his house only at the cost of complainant. It was further pleaded that matter was put up before Permanent Lok Adalat Patiala and OPs prepared the takhmeena report and site plan for changing the electric naked wires near the house of the complainant and the contract was given to M/s Raman Electronics at the expenses of the complainant. The OPs denied the other averments of the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
First Appeal No.747 of 2013 4
4. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.C-A, C-B alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to C-30 and closed the evidence. As against it, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-A alongwith documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum dated 04.06.2013, the complainant now appellant preferred this appeal against the same.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also examined the evidence on the record adduced by the parties. Affidavit of complainant is Ex.C-A in support of his averments on the record and affidavit of Parveen Kanta is Ex.C-B. Ex.C-1 is copy of complaint dated 21.12.1998 addressed by complainant to Chairman of Improvement Trust Patiala and Ex.C-2 is the postal receipt thereof. Ex.C-3 & C-4 are the receipts regarding deposit of the amounts on 23.11.1998 by complainant with OPs. Ex.C-5 is the document of OPs. Ex.C-6 to C-9 are the copies of electricity bills. Ex.C-10 to C-18 are the photographs. Ex.C-19 is completion plan of house of complainant sanctioned by Improvement Trust Patiala on 16.04.2005. Ex.C-20 is the copy of letter from OPs to son of complainant to the effect that during spot inspection, it was found that horizontal distance of LT line from his house was 1.5 feet and this information was supplied to applicant. The complainant hence moved complaint Ex.C-21 to CMD, PSPCL, Patiala for keeping the naked wires of electric line away from his house to avoid First Appeal No.747 of 2013 5 any harm on 15.09.2011 and Ex.C-22 is the postal receipt thereof. Ex.C-23 is the copy of legal notice and Ex.C-24 and C-25 are the postal receipts thereof. Ex.C-26 is the copy of order of Permanent Lok Adalat, Patiala. Ex.C-27 is the copy of complaint regarding installment of meter outside the house of the complainant and to provide real time display unit at his premises for his information to indicate the electricity consumed by him and Ex.C-28 is the postal receipt thereof. Ex.C-29 is the copy of legal notice to OP and Ex.C-30 is the postal receipt thereof. The OPs relied upon affidavit of Sukhminder Singh, SDO of OPs Ex.OP-A. It is stated in it that complainant was asked by deponent that naked wires could be covered with PVC pipes at costs of complainant and he was asked to deposit the estimated amount, but he did not agree therefor. OPs only changed the wires and not removed the wires and the place of poles. The complainant made a new construction and due to that reason, the construction of the complainant's house came close to the electric wires. He proved Ex.OP-1, the Takhmeena Report on the record. Ex.OP-2 is the copy of order of Sr. Exective Engineer, Patiala for determination of rates. Ex.OP-3 is the copy of rough Naksha.
6. From appraisal of above referred evidence on the record, we find that controversy which is involved in this case is as to whether complainant now appellant raised the construction after the installation of poles and wires or it was raised prior thereto. The next point of contention is that complainant seeks that OPs should bear First Appeal No.747 of 2013 6 the expenses for shifting of the poles and wires away from his house. The stand of OPs is that they are ready to do it at the costs of complainant. Rule 79 of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 as amended upto 25th November, 2000 has been reproduced as under:
(1) Where a low or medium voltage, overhead line passes above or adjacent to or terminates on any building, the following minimum clearances from any accessible point, on the basis of maximum sag, shall be observed:-
(a) For any flat roof, open balcony, verandah roof and lean-to-roof :
(i) When the line passes above the building a vertical clearance of 2.5 meters from the highest point, and
(ii) When the line passes adjacent to the building a horizontal clearance of 1.2 meters from the nearest point.
(b) For pitched roof:
(i) When the line passes above the building vertical clearance of 2.5 meters immediately under the lines, and
(ii) When the line passes adjacent to the building a horizontal clearance of 1.2 meters (2) Any conductor so situated as to have a clearance less than that specified in sub-rule(1) shall be adequately insulated and shall be attached at suitable intervals to a bare earthed bearer wire having a breaking strength of not less than 350 kg.First Appeal No.747 of 2013 7
(3) The horizontal clearance shall be measured when the line is at a maximum deflection from the vertical due to wind pressure.
[Explanation- For the purpose of this rule, expression "building" shall be deemed to include any structure, whether permanent or temporary]"
The version of the OPs is that when the supply line was installed, there was no construction of the house of the complainant. The complainant raised the construction subsequently and at the expenses of the complainant, they are ready to cover the wires with PVC pipes. The matter was also put up before Permanent Lok Adalat in this regard, vide Ex.C-26 on the record. Site plan on the record is Ex.C-19 dated 26.04.2005 and prior to sanction of site plan of the house of the complainant, there was no question of raising construction thereat. The complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.C-A. He stated in his affidavit that he applied for electricity connection on 23.11.1998 and deposited Rs.2000/- as security for new connection and he has been using the electricity connection from 1999. He stated that naked wires of electric line were not shown in the photographs Ex.C-10 to C-15. Similarly, Parveen Kanta W/o Sh. Bal Krishan Arora stated in her affidavit Ex.C-B that no such wires existed, when they raised the construction of the house. The complainant applied for sewerage and water connection on 21st December, 1998 to Chairman, Improvement Trust Patiala. The application of complainant for electricity connection is Ex.C-5 dated First Appeal No.747 of 2013 8 29.12.1998 and electricity bills are Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-9 on the record. The affidavit of Er. Sukhminder Singh, SDO of PSPCL is Ex.OP-A on the record. He stated in his affidavit that naked wires and poles were installed earlier to the construction of the building of the complainant. The complainant raised construction thereafter and they could be shifted at the cost of complainant only. He further stated that takhmeena report and site plan was prepared for changing the naked wires and poles near the house of the complainant. The OPs have not showed their unwillingness to shift the electric wires away from the house of the complainant, but they insisted that it should be at the cost of complainant only. The complainant was asked to deposit the estimated amount for shifting the naked wires, but he failed to do the same. The electricity connection was applied by the complainant on 29.12.1998, vide Ex.C-5. The house was constructed and completed by complainant on 26.04.2005, as per site plan Ex.C-19 on the record, when the said plan was sanctioned by the authorities. The complainant has not applied for shifting the naked electric wires before raising the construction of the house or for covering the LT supply line with PVC pipes. Now, it could be shifted only at the cost of the complainant. The electric meter was installed outside the premises of complainant on 25.09.2012 for providing real time display units. It is not mandatory under regulation 51.3 that the installation of real time display unit at the premises of a consumer is mandatory. We, thus, agree with the findings of the District Forum that the naked electricity wires could be shifted at the cost of the complainant and estimate was prepared in this regard First Appeal No.747 of 2013 9 and complainant was not ready to pay the cost of shifting the said naked electric wires. Consequently, the order of District is without any fault, as no deficiency in service was found on the part of OPs in this case. We found no ground to disagree with the findings of the District Forum.
7. As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed.
8. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 29.02.2016 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (H.S.GURAM) MEMBER March 03, 2016.
(MM)