P.T. THOMAS vs KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THE complainant set up a factory for manufacture of timber products in Small Scale sector in the Pathanamthitta District of Kerala and applied for electricity connection to the Opposite Party (K.S.E.B.) in 1986. For this purpose he deposited a sum of Rs. 72,100/- on 2nd of July, 1986 by way of contribution under the contribution scheme then in vogue for drawing 11 KV line and installing metering equipment at the factory site. He had asked for supply of 130 KVA power.

ACCORDING to the complainant the Opposite Party did not take any action to instal the line till the first week of April, 1987. Thereafter there was delay in the drawing of high tension line because two owners of the paddy fields through which the line was proposed to be drawn, obtained stay orders from the Court of the Munsiff, Tiruvalla. One of these owners also filed a writ petition in the High Court of Kerala against the proposal to draw the line over his paddy field. The grievance of the complainant is that the Opposite Party Electricity Board did not follow the correct procedure by approaching the District Magistrate for sanction to draw the line through private property resulting in avoidable delay till the petitions of the objecting owners of the paddy fields were dismissed and stay orders vacated. In the case of one owner, the petition against the drawal of the transmission line was finally disposed of on 24th of May, 1989 and in the second on the 5th of November, 1989. According to the complainant even after the Court cases were dismissed, the Opposite Party Electricity Board did not take any action to give electricity connection to the petitioner. The transmission line was drawn to the factory site of 11th of April, 1990 but the metering equipment was not installed because the Opposite Party did not advise the petitioner regarding the formalities to be completed for giving power connection and in particular, for executing the high tension supply agreement. This agreement was executed only in May, 1991 but the power connection has still not been given. According to the petitioner his factory has suffered loss because of non-supply of power and that the loss incurred after the Court case was dismissed on 24th of May, 1989 was entirely due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party.

The petitioner has also submitted that even though he had made the necessary deposit for the installation of metering equipment as far back as 1986, in August, 1990 he was again asked to remit Rs. 17,500/- for the metering equipment to be installed at the factory and in November, 1990 Rs. 33,600/- as connection charges. Though he had deposited the connection charges of Rs. 65,000/-in 1986, again in November, 1990 he was asked to deposit Rs. 10,000/- as security. The petitioner, therefore, claimed Rs. 22,29,000/- as compensation for the loss incurred by his factory during the period of two years after May, 1989 and reimbursement of Rs. 8,000/- he was forced to pay along with the additional security of Rs.10,000/- deposited on the 4th of June, 1991.

HE has also claimed interest at the rate of 16% on the contribution of Rs. 72,100/- deposited by him on the 2nd of July, 1986 till the date of electricity connection is actually given. The Opposite Party Electricity Board has, in its statement of defence, categorically repudiated the charge that there has been any delay whatsoever on the part of the Opposite Party Electricity Board in providing power to the petitioner.

THE Opposite Party has explained briefly as under: (i) After the receipt of the contribution of Rs. 72,100/- on the 2nd of July, 1986 technical sanction for the work was accorded on 21st of July, 1986. (ii) THE Route approval was given by the Power and Telecommunication Coordination Committee on the 4th of May 1987. (iii) It was only in May, 1987 that the work of laying the transmission line could be undertaken but, as stated by the petitioner himself, two land owners got stay orders from the Courts of law against the drawing of the transmission line over their fields. In one case the stay order was obtained on the 8th of April, 1987 and this stay and the suit were finally dismissed on the 24th of May, 1989. Another property owner had also obtained stay order in 1987 which was eventually vacated and the District Magistrate allowed the Board to draw transmission line on the 5th of November, 1989.

The Opposite Party, Electricity Board has therefore, explained that it was not at all responsible for the delay in drawing the high tension line till November, 1989. The Opposite Party Electricity Board has further explained that there was no failure on their part to follow the correct procedure for obtaining the order of the District Magistrate for drawing the transmission line over a private property. In any case the private land owners could not be prevented from obtaining the stay orders and filing suits in Courts of Law against proposed drawing of the transmission line. After November, 1989, the paddy fields over which the transmission line had to pass were water-logged as the area was under paddy cultivation. As such the transmission line could be drawn only after the paddy had been harvested in May, 1990.

THE opposite Party, Electricity Board has further submitted that in April, 1990 the petitioner revised his requirement of power from 130 KVA to 55 KVA. This necessitated further examination by the Opposite Party, Electricity Board and the revised power requirement was sanctioned only on 10th of July, 1990,

IT is evident from above that there was no avoidable delay on the part of the Opposite Party, Electricity Board in drawing the transmission line to the factory site. The Opposite Party, Electricity Board asked the petitioner on 23rd of August, 1990 to execute the power supply agreement. The draft supply agreement was finalised on 10th of December, 1,990 but the petitioner did not submit along with the draft agreement the wiring Completion Certificate from a licenced wiring contractor in respect of the wiring within his factory premises. The Opposite Party, Electricity Board has drawn attention to the Indian Electricity rules which permit the Licensee Electricity Board to give connection to any premises only if the wiring is certified to be completed by a licenced wiring contractor. This Certificate was submitted by the petitioner only in March, 1991.

According to the opposite party the petitioner has made certain changes in the internal installation but he had not submitted the necessary approval of the Electrical Inspector and in consequence the Opposite Party was unable to give connection to the petitioner.

THE narration of above facts clearly and amply establishes that there has been no avoidable delay whatsoever on the part of the Opposite Party in giving power connection to the petitioner. As regards the connection charges and security deposit, the Opposite Party has explained that, on verification in August, 1990 and again in May, 1991, the Board discovered that the actual cost of metering equipment in 1986 was Rs. 15,000/- as against Rs. 7,000/- which was deposited in 1986. That was why the Board asked for an additional deposit of Rs. 8,000/- which was remitted by the petitioner in June, 1991.

THE connection charges recovered in 1986 were Rs. 65,100/- only and the fresh demand of Rs. 3,36,000/- made in November, 1990 has been withdrawn. The security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- is, however, a must and the security has to be deposited, as per the conditions of supply, by consumer at the time the connection is given to him. Consequently no grievance of the petitioner regarding excessive levy of charges for metering equipment and connection charges etc. survives.

THUS the delay in the grant of power connection was for good and sufficient reason. There bas also been no excessive levy of charges for giving the power connection. In fact, the delay was largely due to delay in the production of the wiring completion certificate from the licenced contractor in March, 1991 and the failure to produce the certificate from a electrical inspector in respect to the changes in internal installation made by the petitioner.

IN the result there is no merit in the petition and we dismiss the same. The Petitioner will pay Rs. 2,000/- as costs to the Opposite Party. Complaint dismissed.