Assistant Executive Engineer vs SRI T.K.AJAN

THE opposite party in OP No. 83/94 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam is the appellant. He is the Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section Pallimukku Kollam. THE appeal is against the order dated, 20.2.94.

BRIEFLY the complainant''s case is as follows. The complainant is a consumer of electricity. Two other electric wires from the same post from which connection was given to the complainant''s house are dangerously hanging very low and causing spark at times. On 25.12.93 two linemens were on work in the area. The complainant requested them to set right the hanging lines but they did not heed. The complainant clapped hands to attach their attention and went to them and repeated the request. But lineman Surendran angrily threw the ladder which was with him injuring the complainant. The complainant went to the Police and lodged First Information Report. From that day onwards there had been no electric supply to the complainants house. He made an entry in the complaint book of the electrical section on 27.12.93 about the non-availability of current from 25.12.93. onwards. After waiting for two days he wrote to the Executive Engineer about the nonvailability on 29.12.1993. The Executive Engineer directed the complainant to contact the Assistant Executive Engineer. The complainant against addressed the Executive Engineer through registered letter dated 4.1.94 about the non-availability of supply. The Executive Engineer received the letter on 6.1.94 but did nothing to restore the electric supply. Hence the complainant approached the District Forum for relief claiming restoration of electricity to his house, He also demanded the return of Rs. 18/ towards the slab payment of current charges for the period of non-supply. Compensation of Rs. 250/-per day from 25.12.93 till the date of the filing of the complaint amounting to Rs. 6,250/- and Rs. 300/- per day for the further period till the date of restoration are also prayed for. The opposite party appeared and filed objection. His version is that when the linemen working in the area was moving to the next electric post for carrying out the repairs, on a wrong impression that they are leaving the premises without repairing the complainant''s line, complainant pulled the ladder and lineman Surendran fell down. Then the complainant manhandled him. Nobody has disconnected the supply and the complaint is baseless.

The District Forum after assessing the evidence found that there was no current supply to the complainant from 25.12.93 to 1.2.94. Though technically there was no disconnection or reconnection the complainant''s house was in darkness which continued for thirty days till the District Collector intervened. The District Forum found deficiency of service and awarded damages of Rs. 3800/-. The Assistant Executive Engineer has come in appeal challenging the said order.

WE meticulously perused all the records and heard the arguments of Counsel in detail. The complainant has produced copies of letter sent acknowledgement due by him to the Executive Engineer Electrical Division, Kollam on 29.2.93. Copy of registered letter dated 4.1.94 to the Executive Engineer is also produced. Evidence is also available for payment of electric charges. Copy of representation to the District Collector and his intervention in the matter is also in evidence. The complainant has produced, A1 to A10 to substantiate his case. The complainant has gone into the witness box as PW 1 and gave evidence. A Neighbour Sundarsan is examined as PW 2. He deposes he lives thirty-feet away and from 25.12.93 for about thirty-eight days the complainant''s house was in darkness for want of electric supply. He also speaks about the complaints and representation of the complaint to the various authorities in this matter. He says he was dissuaded by the officers of the opposite party not to give evidence in the case. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Pallimukku has given evidence as RW 1. His evidence is evasive and when cornered, he escapes by saying that he was not the Executive Engineer in charge at the relevant time. Reading between the lines one can safely hold that the electric connection to the complainant''s house was not restored due to the animority existing between the complainant and the staff of the opposite party. The complainant as well as linemen have filed complaints before the Police. This is no reason for not restoring electric supply to the complainant. He has regularly paid the current charges. There is satisfactory evidence to establish that supply was cut off for no justifiable reason and no action was taken to restore the same inspire of the repeated requests lodged by the complainant to the authorities. Having failed in his attempt to persuade the officers of the Electricity Board to restore connection, the complainant had to seek the help of the District Collector. On 25.1.94 he petitioned to the District Collector and because of the Collector''s intervention the complainant got power supply.

AFTER a reading of Ex. A1 to A 10 and the deposition of the witnesses we are led to the only conclusion that the staff of the appellants are either by their inaction or omission harassing the complainant by illegally denying electric supply. There is really deficiency in service for which the opposite party is answerable. We do not feel that the compensation awarded is on the high side. We have no hesitation in confirming the order of the District Forum. It is open to the appellant to realise the amount if so advised from the erring employees who are responsible for the defi ciency in service. The appeal is dismissed however without costs. Appeal dismissed.