1

TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN 19- A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, (Marshal Road),

Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. Phone : ++91-044-2841 1376 / 2841 1378/ 2841 1379 Fax : ++91-044-2841 1377

Email : tnerc@nic.in Web site : www.tnerc.gov.in

BEFORE THE TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY OMBUDSMAN, CHENNAI

Present : Thiru. A. Dharmaraj, Electricity Ombudsman

Appeal Petition No.37 of 2014 Thiru K.Kathirvelu, B.E., No.54, Kamaraj Nagar, Sholingur & Post, Vellore District, Pincode 631 102 :. . . . . . Appellant

(Party in person) Vs

The Assistant Engineer / O & M, Erumbi Village & Post, Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle Pallipat Taluk, Thiruvallur District, Pincode – 631 302. :. . . . . Respondent (Party in person)

Date of hearing : 7.8.2014 & 11.11.2014

Date of order : 07.01.2015 The Appeal petition dt. 19-6-2014 received from Thiru K. Kathirvelu, Kamaraj

Nagar, was registered as AP 37 of 2014. The Appeal petition came up for hearing

before the Electricity Ombudsman on 7.8.2014 & 11.11.2014. Upon perusing the

Appeal Petition, counter affidavit and after hearing both sides, the Electricity

Ombudsman passes the following order.

Order

1. Prayer of the Appellant:

i) To pass orders for refund of both the amounts of Rs.47,300/- and 32,200/- for which

the copy of the original receipts are enclosed and also to pass orders for submission

2

of detailed original estimates and deviated estimates for the amounts of Rs.47,300/-

and Rs.32,200/-.

ii) To pass orders for restoring the conveniences and facilities which were available to

the Complainant as was existing before the execution of DCW on 15.04.2014.

iii) To pass orders granting the Complainant the same concessions which were

rendered to his immediate neighbours in removing the entire 3 phase 4 lined

transmission system over their houses and plots without any payment.

iv) To pass orders for submission of orders from Mr. Sathish the AE/O&M/Erumbi under

which the 4 lined 3 phase transmission system was modified into 2 lined single

phase transmission system to a length of about 300 feet.

v) To pass orders for submission of orders from Mr. Sathish, the AE/O&M/Erumbi

under which the 4 line 3 phase transmission system was fully removed over the

houses and plots of the neighbours of the complainant before executing the DCW in

the premises of the Complainant on 16.4.2014.

vi) To pass an order for the compensation to the Complainant atleast to an amount of

Rs.5.00 lakhs from Mr. Sathish, the Assistant Engineer, Erumbi EB Section for his

adamancy, to comply with the request of the Complainant already made in direct and

through the CGRF, KEDC, Kancheepuram and such other orders that may deem fit

and to be considered by the Electricity Ombudsman.

vii) To pass orders for advising and warning to the executive staff concerned in the level

of AE / JE in EB Section, Erumbi Village involved to create such a Consumer

Grievance Application, appeal etc. resulting waste of time, money on both sides.

2. Brief history of the case:

2.1 The Appellant applied for 3 Nos service connection for his premises situated

at Erumbi village .

(a) 1 No. LT 3 phase service connection under tariff I A in Survey No. 235/57 of

Erumbi Village.

(b) 2 Nos of LT 3 phase service connection one under tariff IA and another under

Tariff V in survey No. 949/2AI.

2.2 The Appellant was informed that on payment of the damage cost and DCW

shifting cost of the line that are passing over his building the service connection

requested will be considered.

2.3 The Appellant filed a petition before the CGRF of Kancheepuram Electricity

Distribution Circle and the Forum has issued its order on 28.3.2014. The Forum

3

ordered that the service connection application will be admitted only after the

payment of damage and shifting cost by the petitioner.

The Appellant paid a sum of Rs.47,300/- towards the damage and shifting

charges and the services were effected.

3. Orders of CGRF

3.1 The CGRF of Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle issued its order on

28.3.2014. The relevant para of the Forum order is extracted below:-

“ Conclusion: Based on the substantiated reasons as placed by the Petitioner and the

Respondents (1 & 2) at the various hearing before the Forum and after thorough

verification on the issue, the Forum directs as follows:

1. The request made by the Petitioner for the electrification of 3 Nos of Service

connections at his owned premises (in Survey No. 235/57 – 1 No & 2 Nos in SF

No.949/2A1 would be admitted only after the payment of Damage & Shifting cost by

the petitioner to the Licensee at any cause.

2. Hence, abiding the Regulations 27 (6) & (7) a DCW estimate may be evolved

for the damages and shifting of the LT 3 phase 4 wire line and the payment charges

may be intimated to the petitioner by the EE / O & M/Tiruttani within 3 days on

receipt of this order and the Petitioner may also be intimated to pay the amount on or

before 10.04.14 (failing which this the order gets cancelled).

3. On payment of the DCW cost the Licensee shall entrust the shifting work and

complete within the shortest time period (Within 3 days).

4. On completion of the shifting work, the request towards the electrification of

service connections as requested by the petitioner in Forum shall be admitted and

electrified within a period of 15 days on receipt of the service connection charges.

Note: The last hearing was arranged on 28.03.14 (as per the request of the

petitioner) and during the discussions as expressed by Quorum, the petitioner had

also accepted the aforementioned conclusion and complied to pay the DCW

estimate cost to the Licensee to proceed further.”

4. Contentions of the Appellant:

The Appellant has contended the following in the appeal petition.

4

(i) The CGRF at KEDC, Kancheepuram clubbed all the three complaints of the

Complainant and registered as Case 1/2014 and passed its orders on 28.3.2014.

(ii) The Complainant have clearly explained in detail in letter dt.29.3.2014 and 4.4.2014

regarding his critical position to follow the orders of the CGRF, Kancheepuram and

explained every possibility and feasibility to modify the orders as insisted by the

complainant from the beginning.

(iii) The CGRF, Kancheepuram never considered the documentary evidences produced

by the Complainant and also his explanations with his personal witness. The

CGRF’s actions were favourable to the Respondents from the beginning of the date

of receipt of the complaints from the Complainant. The irregularities of the CGRF,

Kancheepuram have also been intimated to the Electricity Ombudsman.

(iv) On receiving the order from the CGRF, Kancheepuram and under the compulsions,

circumstances and forces as explained by the Complainant in the leter dt.4.4.2014

addressed to CGRF & Electricity Ombudsman, the Complainant sent his letter dated

04-04-2014 with a DD for Rs.47,300/- to the AE O & M, Erumbi Village, KEDC,

Kancheepuram as instructed by the Forum and the same was acknowledged by the

Assistant Engineer, on 07.04.2014.

(v) The necessity of sending the DD for the entire amount of Rs.47,300/- ordered by the

Forum forcibly as detailed below was committed by the Complainant under protest

as expressed by the Complainant in the letters dated 4.4.2014 written to the CGRF

Kancheepuram and Mr. Sathish Assistant Engineer, O & M, Erumbi respectively.

The forcible and compulsory orders are

i) The request made by the Petitioner for the electrification of 3 Nos of

service connections at his owned premises (in Survey No. 235/57 – 1 and 2 Nos in

S.No. 949/2A1) would be admitted only after the payment of Damage & Shifting cost

by the Petitioner to the Licensee at any cause.

ii) Hence, abiding the Regulation 27 (6) & (7), a DCW estimate may be

evolved for the damages & shifting of the LT 3 phase 4 wire line and the payment

charges may be intimated to the petitioner by the Executive Engineer/O&M/Tiruttani

within 3 days on receipt of this orders and the Petitioner may also be intimated to

pay the amount on or before 10.04.14 (failing which this the order gets

cancelled).

Further in the above orders of the Forum under the footnote it is give as :-

5

Note: The last hearing was arranged on 28.03.14 (as per the request of the

Petitioner) and during the discussions, as expressed by Quorum, the Petitioner had

also accepted the aforementioned conclusion and complied to pay the DCW

estimate cost to the Licensee to proceed further.

(vi) Both of the above orders and also the note as said above are contrary to the

discussions and decisions made during the enquiry on 28.3.14 at CGRF,

Kancheepuram.

(vii) The orders of the Forum were passed only on the views of the above said

person to safe guard his interest and to make him free from the three complaints of

the complainant.

(viii) The Forum allowed sufficient time to both of them to create false replies to

suit the three complaints with the help of Mr. Karthikeyan, the then JE, of Erumbi

Section who is now working at Athimanjerypet, Tiruttani Division, KEDC,

Kancheepuram.

(ix) This may be due to the reason that the Licensee, the Chairman of CGRF and

the Superintending Engineer are all one and the same person. The other two

members of the Forum have not been facilitated with separate staff and Office to

analyse the complaints for taking the decisions and revealing their own views. Both

of them did not put any question to the Respondents. They have been only as

observers. The Chairman was the only person to deal the proceedings of the

enquiry. Hence his decisions were final and contrary to the actuals. Both the

Respondents have been freed and the Complainant was not given any relief and the

orders were on the line of the view of the Respondents.

(x) The Complainant quoted in several occasions in his documents and by

personal witness during the enquiry the previleges granted by the “G.O. Ms. No. 7

Energy (C3) Department dated 23.02.2005 to the Chairman, TNEB, Chennai – 2

and the Secretary, TNEB, Chennai – 2 and also copy marked to the Municipal

Administration and Water Supply Department Chennai – 9” in shifting the

Electric poles and wires in the premises of the Complainant that comes in Village

Panchayat. The privileges and concessions in the above G.O. is “The cost of

shifting work in Village Panchayats and Panchayat unions is to be borne by the

TNEB itself since these institutions are weaker”. The Forum has failed to record

its views about this G.O. in its orders. Mr. Sathish the AE, O & M received the

6

DD for Rs.47,300/- for the DCW estimate that was prepared on this own accord

without any consent or application or agreement from the Complainant.

(xi) Three phase 4 lined wires were existing in premises of the Complainant before

the execution of the DCW. The same convenience might have been replaced while

shifting also. But the AE has replaced the 3 Phase 4 lined transmission power

system which was a convenience to the Complainant, as single phase 2 lined

transmission power system. This acts of Mr.s Sathish, the AE, O & M were against

the Natural Justice and against the welfare of the Complainant.

(xii) The new pole erected is still without strut or supporting pole. It stands in a

slanting position. The new pole erected may fall down at any time due to the

unexpected storms and wind pressure and one wire is now going in touch with a

coconut tree very closely and this wire may be damaged at any time due to friction

with the coconut tree and may cause hazards to the livings. Two poles rigidly fixed

were also forcibly removed.

(xiii) The AE has removed 3 phase 4 lined wiring that were passing over the houses

and plots of the very adjacent neighbours living at the north of the premises of the

Complainant and also he made 3 phase 4 lined wiring into single phase 2 lined

wiring to a length of about 300 feet beyond the houses and plots before executing

the remaining DCW Work in the premises of the Complainant on 16.04.2014.

(xiv) The Complainant is of the opinion that no rules and regulations have been

followed in executing the DCW work beyond the premises of the Complainant. Only

with the aim of completing his desire in executing the DCW in the premises of the

complainant he violated all the rules and regulation and took them all in his hand.

5. Contentions of the Respondent:

The Respondent have furnished a detailed counter. But the contentions that

are relevant to the prayers of the Appellant alone are furnished below:-

(i) The sum of Rs.47,300/- and Rs.32,200/- paid by the Appellant are as per the

sanctioned DCW estimates. As the works are completed as per the estimate

seeking refund of the said amounts are against Boards rules.

(ii) As per the orders of the CGRF of Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle the

DCW works was completed. The poles and the lines passing through the premises

were removed to safe guard the interest of the Petitioner.

7

(iii) As stated by the Appellant, no electric lines was removed in the nearby house of the

Appellant. The works were executed as per the sanctioned estimate only.

(iv) A 3 phase, 4 wire was passing through the Appellant premises. The above line was

removed and a single phase line was erected to continue the supply to the other

consumers who are fed by the above line. As there was no three phase supply

availing consumer the line was erected as a single phase line. But the estimate was

prepared without any loss to Board and the Appellant.

(v) The electric poles and lines were removed only based on the estimate approved by

the Assistant Executive Engineer / R.K. Pettai and not as per his desire as stated by

the petitioner.

(vi) In letter dated 17.3.2006, the petitioner has requested for removal of lines passing

over his house plots wherein he has agreed to have the shifted line to pass over his

land. The above work was done based on a proper sanction as DCW estimate.

(vii) The petitioner has thanked the Executive Engineer / Thiruthani & Assistant Engineer

/ Erumbi for completing the DCW works. The copies of the letters are furnished for

reference.

(viii) He also filed a petition to shift the electric line passing through the premises and the

poles erected in the premises at boards cost. In response to the above request,

necessary reply was sent on 29-12-2007.

(ix) On 4-1-2009, Thiru A. Ravi wireman informed the Junior Engineer / Erumbi that the

electric line passing over the premises of the petitioner was damaged and a pole has

also broken due to falling of the broken concrete and rods on the electric line.

(x) Accordingly, the petitioner was informed to stop the work and arrange to shift the line

in an alternate route by paying the DCW estimate cost as per the rates in force vide

letter dt.5.1.2009. A complaint was also made with R.K. Pettai Police Station in this

regard (Crime No.07/2009 sec 337 & 338).

(xi) As per the requests of the other consumers, supply was restored to them through an

alternate route.

(xii) The petitioner filed a petition dt.12.1.2009 to remove the dead LT lines which are still

existing on the premises of the petitioner which was also replied by the Junior

Engineer / Erumbi on 21.1.2009.

6. Rejoinder of the Appellant :-

6.1 The contentions that are relevant to the case alone are furnished below :

8

6.2 It is also one of the efforts taken by Thiru. Satish, AE to create record against

the complainant to face the complaints. The S.I of R.K. Pet Police Station found no

evidence at all at the premises of the complainant to take action against the

appellant.

6.3 Against the discussions made in the meeting held on 28.3.2014 at CGRF,

Kancheepuram, the cost of Rs.47,300/- towards DCW estimate was collected from

the appellant under protest. The appellant has not given consent to the DCW work

and against his information, request etc. the cost of Rs.47,300/- have been collected

from the appellant forcibly and Thiru. Sathish, AE has executed the DCW work as

per his will and wish against the code rules. In these aspects the communications

sent to TNEO may please be referred to.

6.4 Against all the objections, informations, request etc., Thiru. Sathish, AE,

removed the existing pole at Loc.2 and 4 lined wiring between Loc. 1 and Loc.2

which were in good condition and no one wanted its removal except Thiru. Sathish,

AE. The poles and wires were in a separate condition from the buildings and they

were serving its purpose to the appellant and also to others away from the premises

of the appellant. From the year 2006 they were in the present position and no EB

officials was under the necessity to remove them from their position. To cope up his

false activities in non granting new supply to the appellant , he took all the steps and

created causes to disturb the appellant. It is to be informed to the TNEO that, from

the year 2006 the appellant as well as other adjacent to the appellant’s premises

were getting supply only from the pole at Loc. 2 and no one gave applications to

remove it. If at all given, it is only at the cost of EB.

6.5 It is false to state that Thiru. Raja, JE and Thiru. Sathish, AE have acted

properly as per the code rules. If all their actions were as per the code rules, there is

no necessity at all to the appellant to bear such a sorrowful mental agonying state of

affairs. During the service of Mr. Karthikeyan the JE, the appellant gave application

for new connection from the same pole at Loc2. But he did not grant new supply.

This message have already been proved with the relevant records and the same

may please be referred to.

6.6 It is true that a case was filed at R.K. Pet Police Station on 5.4.2009 against

the appellant for a small accidental incident under section 337 & 338. These

sections are meant for incidence of negligence on the part of persons while doing

9

works in general. This case was closed later as there was no necessity to keep it

pending.

6.7 It is the actual fact that the most sufferer is the appellant and he is facing a

lot of problems, loses, worries, mental tiredness etc., because of the reason that

Thiru. Sathis, AE, instead of solving problems peacefully, is going on creating

problem more than his capacity and made the appellant to come to this stage. he

proposed DCW estimate got the order as per his wish and executed the same as per

his wish and all his activities were against the code rules.

6.8 Both the DCW were executed under protest and against the information and

request made by the appellant. The DCW for Rs.32200/- was carried out against the

safety rules (vide safety aspects under code rules already enclosed. Section 53 of

Electricity Act 2003, section 63 under TNEDC 2004 and section 13 of CEA

Regulations 2010 already enclosed). The DCW executed under protest as said in

the above para in the same have been removed from the premises of the Appellant

by getting an amount of Rs.47,300/- from the appellant forcibly. Further, on the

resolution passed by the village panchayat, Erumbi village based on the G.O the

DCW work in the premises of the appellant might have been executed at the cost of

TNEB Ltd., (vide resolution No.39, dated 27.12.2006 of Erumbi village panchayat,

pallipat taluk, Tiruvallur Dist. and G.O. Ms No.7, EnergyC3 Department dated

23.2.2005 to the Chairman, TNEB, Chennai2).

6.9 The appellant never requested for the removal of the existing poles and wires

which were erected while executing DCW in the year 2006. They were forcibly

removed by getting compulsory demand of Rs.47,300/-

6.10 In the appeal petition itself it has been clearly proved with photos that he has

removed wires over the houses and house sites very adjacent to the premises of the

appellant without any payment by the concerned to the TNEB without any cost. The

same procedure is applicable to the appellant also and the appellant need not pay

any cost to do a similar type of work in appellant premises.

6.11 The appellant and others were having the convenience of getting 3 phases 4

lined transmission system which were existing before executing unnecessary DCW

by the AE. It is the natural justice and it is also duty of the public servant to keep the

convenience as it is when the system is changed and put in another place. The AE

so far not given the copy of the estimate under which he removed the transmission

system in premises of the appellant and also over the house sites of the others.

10

6.12 Without any consent from the appellant , the DCW was executed and

amount collected. This is against the code rules. The wires over the houses and

house sites of the neighbours were also removed without any estimate or amount

collected from the concerned.

6.13 It is true that the appellant submitted application but later on before executing

DCW the appellant made protest and requested not to execute DCW because of

the reason that the DCW would created more dangers to the persons in his

premises. But only for the reason that amount collected from him, the EB executed

DCW .

6.14 The AE has comfortably taken two lines from the letter dated 26.12.2007 and

he has hidden all the important grievances revealed by the appellant. It is very

clear , he is creating false reply to suit the complaints.

6.15 It is true that the appellant requested the EB to remove all the wires and the

poles from his premises at the cost of the EB on the resolution passed by the Erumbi

village panchayat based on the G.O.Ms No.7 dated 23.2.2005 energy (C3)

department addressed to the Chairman, TNEB, Chennai 2. But, it is fully false that

the JE, Karthikeyan has given his reply letter dated 29.12.2007 to the appellant. The

letter which is said to be as written by the Karthikeyan JE is a created one. There is

no proof that it has been served to and acknowledged by the appellant.

6.16 The letter from A Ravi is created one on the lines of the instruction from the

AE to issue reply to the complaints. A. Ravi is the son-in-law of D.Munivel and

relative to Raja and velu who are the defendants/respondents in 3 suits in which he

was the Plaintiff and the suits are pending before DMC Pallipat, Tiruvallur Dist.

6.17 The JE Karthikeyan did not give any such letter dt.5.1.2009 to the appellant to

stop the work and issue application to change the transmission supplies. There is no

proof at all for having served the same to the appellant. This letter is also created

one to reply complaints.

6.18 Thiru. Karthikeyan, JE, had never given complaint to RK Pet Police Station.

This letter also a created one. No evidence and proof enclosed. No CSR received .

In case of accidents, he might have reported the fact, as per the code rules to all

the higher officials( vide TNERC 2005 section 12 cognizance of the offence and the

intimation of the accidents (from time of service of notice) Rules 2005).

11

6.19 No disturbance happened for the supply to the neighbours as well as to the

appellant’s house. The service connection for the appellant’s house is 331. copy of

the meter reading card already enclosed and the same may please be referred to.

6.20 It is true that the appellant has submitted letter to the JE karthikeyan for

removal of the deadlines. But, Karthikeyan never gave any letter to the appellant .

No evidence and no proof for having delivered such a letter to the appellant . This is

also a created one for giving reply to the complaints.

6.21 Thiru. Karthikeyan has served in EB section for about seven years

continuously and he went on leave at the beginning of the year 2013. From the year

2006 he has been incharge of Erumbi EB section. There is no single

correspondences at all from him to the appellant. The appellant only sent many

correspondences to the JE Karthikeyan and no single reply got from the JE.

7. Hearing held by the Electricity Ombudsman :

7.1 In order to enable the Appellant and the Respondent to put forth their

arguments in person, a hearing was held before the Electricity Ombudsman ON 7-8-

2014. Appellant informed that the counter was served to him only on 6-8-2014 and

hence prayed for an adjournment to study the counter. Accordingly the hearing was

adjourned to 20-8-2014 and further hearing was conducted on 11.11.2014.

On both the days of hearing, the Appellant himself attended the hearing.

Thiru B. Sathish, Assistant Engineer / O & M, Erumbi & Thiru K. Raja, Junior

Engineer / O & M, K.K. Kandigai have attended the hearing on behalf of the

Respondent.

8. Argument of the Appellant:-

8.1 Thiru K. Kathirvelu, the Appellant herein has attended the hearing and

presented the case.

8.2 He reiterated the contents of the petition.

8.3 He argued that he paid Rs.47,300/- under protest.

8.4 The Appellant citing G.O.Ms. No. 7 Energy (C3) Department dated 23-2-2005,

argued that the shifting works would have been done at the expenses of

TANGEDCO as the Erumbi Village Panchayat has passed a resolution to the effect.

12

8.5 He also argued that the DCW estimate was prepared without consulting him.

Further, he argued that he has not given any consent for shifting the lines under

DCW.

8.6 He also argued that the 3 Ø, 4 wire Electric line passing over the adjacent

house of his premises was now removed without collecting any cost from the

adjacent house owner. Hence, argued the same benefit shall be given to him also.

8.7 He also argued that the existing 3 Ø wire was changed to single phase

electric line while shifting the line. Hence argued due to shifting of line, the existing

facility of 3 Ø, 4 wire was taken back and only a single phase line was provided.

8.8 The Appellant informed that he has not raised the issue of refund of

Rs.32,200/-paid during 2006 in the CGRF. Hence, agreed to drop the above prayer

as the prayer which was not raised in the lower forum cannot be raised in appeal.

8.9 On 11.11.2014 he informed that the shifted line was changed as 3 Ø, 4 wire

line while effecting 3 phase supply to his application submitted on 9.9.2014 Hence,

the facility which was given before shifting was restored now. Hence, he say that he

is dropping the prayer on the above issue also.

8.10 Regarding the estimate for Rs.47,300/- he pointed out the following defects

stating that his arguments on the defects in estimate are without prejudice to his

argument that he need not pay the shifting charges as has not requested for the

shifting on DCW basis.

(i) The shifting of lines between Loc 1 & 2 is not warranted as the same was

available in the vacant place of his premises and the above line was also erected

during 2006 under DCW after collecting Rs.32,200/- from him. As any new

construction was not done on the above area, the horizantal clearance issue now

raised by the respondent is only to justify the estimate. If the horizontal clearance is

really less than the requirement then the respondent have erected the line wrongly

while executing the work during 2006. Hence, he cannot be held responsible for

licensee mistake. He also furnished the copy of the plan sanction in support of the

above argument.

(ii) As per the DCW estimate sanctioned at location 1 provision has been given

for two RCC poles but only one pole was erected. Hence, the cost charged from

him is wrong. He also informed that the erected pole is leaning for want of support.

(iii) The charges of contingences at 3 %, storage at 3 % Transport & labour at

30% estimate and supervision charges at 22% are wrongly adopted.

13

(iv) Dismantling cost of Rs.27,919/- claimed is false. There was no dismantling

between Loc 2 to 3, 3 to 4 and 4 to 5. The lines were already dismantled by the EB

officials during 2009 itself.

(v) He also pointed the difference in span length adopted in between the

DCW estimate sanctioned during 2006 & the DCW estimate sanctioned now.

9. Argument of the Respondent:-

9.1 Thiru Sathish, Assistant Engineer / Erumbi attended the hearing and putforth his

arguments.

9.2 He reiterated the contents of his counter.

9.3 He argued that the Electric line which was passing over the premises was

damaged while the Appellant was doing his construction works. Hence, the

appellant has to pay the damage cost. Further, as the line damaged by the

Appellant was feeding other consumers also alternate feeding arrangement was

made to feed the other consumers as requested by them pending payment of the

damage cost by the Appellant.

9.4 The Assistant Engineer argued that the shifting of line done during 2006 was

based on the request of the appellant only and he has also thanked the concerned

officers for completing the work. Hence, claiming to refund the above amount is not

justifiable.

9.5 The Assistant Engineer also informed that the existing three phase line was

changed to single phase as it is feeding the consumer, who are availing single phase

supply only. He however informed that it will be converted as 3 Ø, 4 wire line

whenever, an application was made to avail a three phase service by any consumer

in that area.

9.6 He also argued that while shifting the lines passing through the premises of the

Appellant, the lines between location 5 to 7 has also to be removed as there is no

possibility to erect stay or strut pole at location no.6. Hence, he argued that the

dismantling of the lines from 5 to 7 is only due to technical reasons and not for

favouring any other consumers.

9.7 On 11-11-2014, the Assistant Engineer / Erumbi informed that as there was

objection to erect a strut pole a stay was erected in location no.1 and the same will

be taken into account while closing the work order. The respondent also argued

14

that the distance between location 5 to 9 will also be checked and the correct span

length will be adopted in the work order closure. He also argued that the estimate

as per actuals will be worked out while closing the work order.

9.8 Regarding the materials that are available at location 2 to 5, the Assistant

Engineer argued as no material was available at present, the cost of such materials

were included in the estimate. He also argued that the charges towords

contingencies, storage transport and labour included in the estimate are as per the

procedure in vogue only.

9.9 The Assistant Engineer / Erumbi also informed that as per the direction of

CGRF only the estimate for shifting of line available in the Appellant’s premises was

prepared and as the Appellant has paid the amount the works were executed and

the services were effected.

10. Findings of the Electricity Ombudsman:

10.1 In the appeal petition the Appellant has made seven prayers out of the seven

prayers the following prayer have already been met by the licensee.

(i) Restoring the conveniences and facilities which were available to the

complainant as was existing before the execution of DCW on 15-4-2014.

(ii) Copy of DCW estimates pertaining to the shifting done under DCW during

2006 and the shifting done during 2014.

10.2 The Appellant in his letter dt. 6.10.2014 has also stated that the following are

the balance prayers. Hence, I am taking the above prayer only for issue of orders.

(1) Refund of Rs.47,300/-

(2) Granting the same concession which were rendered to his immediate

neighbours in removing the entire 3 phase 4 line transmission system over their

house and plots without any payment.

(3) Granting the same concession which were rendered to his immediate

neighbours in removing and modifying the 4 line 3 phase transmission line into 2

line single phase system over the house and plots of his neighbours.

(4) The defendant will furnish the authority under which two operations were

executed by him.

(5) Granting maximum compensation within the powers of Tamil Nadu Electricity

Ombudsman.

15

(6) Advising and warning the executive staff concerned in the level of Assistant

Engineer / Junior Engineer in EB section Erumbi village involved to create such a

Consumer Grievance appeal etc.

The findings are discussed below in prayer wise.

11. Prayer 1 to 3:

11.1 All the three prayers are essentially one prayer only (i.e) refund of Rs.47,300/-

paid by the Appellant towards shifting of line. The prayer 2 & 3 are only arguments

in support of the first prayer.

11.2 The Appellant argued that he has not given any oral or written request for

shifting of the lines under DCW. The licensee only prepared estimate under DCW

and collected the amount which was also paid by him under protest.

11.3 He argued that there is no need to shift the line between location 1 to 2. He

further argued that the above line was erected during 2006 under DCW and there is

no change in the structure. If shifting is necessary due to inadequate Horizontal

clearance then the first erection itself is wrong. He also furnished the approved

plan in support of his argument that there is no change in the structure.

11.4 He also argued that no transmission line was existing between location 2 to

location 5. These transmission lines were dismantled and removed by the EB

officials in the year 2009 itself. The EB officials have agreed that they have

transmitted power from location 2 to other consumers through alternate route.

Hence, the line from location 2 to location 5 is not a live line and already removed by

EB staff by themselves. Hence, no charge shall be made for that work which was

not executed now.

11.5 The Respondents argued that the Appellant has damaged the line passing

through his premises during his construction works and has not paid the damage

cost to the licensee.

11.6 As the Appellant has not co-operated in restoring the damaged line, the other

consumers were given supply through the alternate route. The transmission line

from location 2 to 5 were not removed by the licensee. As the line was passing over

the building of Appellant, the line cannot be removed without the permission of the

Appellant. As the lines are available within his premises, the Appellant is

responsible for safe custody of the above lines. As they are not available now, the

cost of such materials were added to estimate.

16

11.7 The Respondent also argued that on 4-1-09 while construction works were

carried out in the above premises, the LT line and a pole were damaged due to fall of

the rod and the concrete wooden plank on the line.

11.8 The Appellant was informed to pay the damage cost and also to seek

diversion of line on DCW basis. But the Appellant has not paid the damage cost,

hence a complaint was made against him in R.K. Pet police station on 6-1-2009.

Further, in order to restore supply to the other consumers the Jumper at location 2

and 5 have been cut and supply restored to the consumers in an alternate route.

11.9 The respondent also argued that the Appellant has requested for shifting of

line that are passing through his premises at Boards cost by citing the G.O. (Ms) No.

7 energy C3 dt. 23-2-2005. But, as the above G.O. is for village panchayat which

are financially weak, the Appellant was requested to obtain a letter from the Collector

in this regard. But, the appellant has not produced any such letter from Collector.

11.10 On a careful analysis of the arguments putforth by rival parties, it is observed

that a 3 ph 4 wire line was crossing the premises of the Appellant and it was in

service upto 4.1.2009. Only on 4.1.2009, due to falling of the rod and concrete

wooden plank, the above line has been damaged and a pole was also damaged. It

is also observed that the Appellant was requested to pay the damage cost and

shifting of line under DCW on 21.1.2009. But it is seen that due to interruption of

supply to other consumer, the line damaged and passing through the Appellant’s

premises was left as such and supply to other consumers were made through an

alternate route after cutting the jumper at location 2 & 5 on 6.1.2009. The cutting of

jumpers at location 2 & 5 made the line passing through the Appellants premises as

dead lines. The Appellant has written a letter to the JE / Erumbi to remove those line

also at Boards cost citing Government GO on shifting of lines in village panchayat

area.

11.11 But the JE / Erumbi has intimated the shifting of line will be done if the

consumer is willing to pay the estimate cost (or) if a letter is obtained from the

Collector that the Panchayat is a financially weak to bear the cost of shifting.

11.12 From the above letters, it is construed that there was a 3 ph 4 wire line

passing over the building of the Appellant and it was cut due to the construction

works carried out by the Appellant and the Appellant has not paid the damage cost

to restore the damaged line and the licensee has made alternate arrangement to

17

supply the other consumers who have suffered due to the above line cut. Due to the

act of non payment of the damage cost, the line passing through the premises of the

Appellant was allowed to be without supply. The licensee’s local JE at the time has

not taken action to intimate the estimate amount and to collect the cost and to

restore the line.

11.13 As keeping the line in dead condition is advantageous to the Appellant he has

not paid the damage cost. But the silence of the concerned section officer to take

appropriate action to recover the cost and to restore the damaged line is not

explained and it is only negligence of duty. But the licensee has taken the issue on

hand only when the Appellant sought service connection for his premises.

11.14 Regarding shifting of line, I would like to refer regulation 5(6) of the Supply

Code, which is extracted below : This regulation was amended subsequently in

notification No.TNERC/SC/7-36, dt.1.7.2014. However, as the shifting was done

prior to 1.7.2014, the regulation in force at that time was extracted below :

“5. Miscellaneous charges xxx xxx xxx xxxx xxx xxxx (6) Service / line, structure and equipments shifting charge. (1) The cost of shifting service / line, Structure and equipments] shall be borne by the consumer. The consumer shall pay the estimated cost of shifting in advance in full. The shifting work will be taken up only after the payment is made. The estimate will cover the following: i. Charges for dismantling at the old site. ii. Charges for transport from the old site to the new site. iii. Charges for erection at the new site. iv. Depreciation on retrievable old materials, if any, not re-used at the site. v. Cost of new materials, if required including transport. vi. Cost of irretrievable materials. vii. Overhead charges. (2) Temporary dismantling and re-erection or shifting of a service connection within the same premises necessitated due to remodeling of premises will be carried out on payment of the required charges for the same. (3) Shifting of an existing service connection involving change in door number or sub-door number or survey field number, shall be considered as a new service connection only. No shifting of an existing service connection is permissible unless all arrears in the service connection are paid, if so demanded by the Licensee.” 11.15 On a careful reading of regulation 5(6) of the Supply Code, it is noted that the

cost of shifting service/line structure equipments shall be borne by the consumer.

The consumer has to pay the estimated cost of shifting in advance in full. The

shifting work will be taken up only after the payment is made. The costs that are to

18

be included in the estimate was also given in the regulation. But, there is no

provision to exempt the shifting cost if the village panchayat is seeking the shifting in

the above regulation.

11.16 As there was a line passing through the premises, and the line was damaged

by the consumer, it is the duty of the consumer to pay the damage and rectification

cost. Had it been paid, the line would have been restored and the line would be a

live line from location 2 to 5. Further, as the lines are passing over the building, they

are to be removed on safety grounds. As the construction was done after laying of

the lines, the consumer has to be bear the cost for shifting. Hence, I am of the view

that the cost of line shifting has to be borne by the Appellant only. Had the line been

dead due to the act of the licensee in changing the route of the line, then, the

licensee would have removed the line also at its cost. But in the case on hand, the

line was damaged by the Appellant while carrying out the construction works and his

failure to pay the damage and rectification cost only resulted in keeping the line as

dead. Hence, the Appellant cannot claim that for removing the dead line he need not

pay the charges.

11.17 The Appellant’s contention is that the village panchayat has given resolution

to the effect of shifting the above line and as per G.O.M.S. No.7, Energy Dept,

dt.23.2.2005, the Board has to be bear the cost.

11.18 The respondent argued that the Appellant was informed to produce a letter

from the collector to the effect that the above panchayat is financially weak.

11.19 As the Appellant has cited G.O.No.7, dt.23.2.2005, the relevant para of the

G.O. is extracted below :

“ xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx In regard to cost of shifting works required by the Corporation, Municipalities and Town Panchayats, those expenditures should be borne by them provided the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board while preparing estimates for works should fix over heads charges only at 7.5% covering all items such as centage, storage, etc., The concession of fixing this charges of 7.5% is applicable only for the above mentioned local bodies. In regard to Panchayats, Panchayat Unions, shifting expenditure should be brone by Tamil Nadu Electricity Board itself as these institutions are financially weaker. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxxx”

19

11.20 On a careful reading of para IV, of the G.O., it is noted that in respect of

Panchayat & Panchayat Unions shifting expenditure should be borne by the Tamil

Nadu Electricity Board itself as these institutions are financially weaker.

11.21 Here, the line to be shifted is passing through a individuals (Appellant’s) land

and not through a premises owned by panchayat, and as per regulation 5(6) of the

Supply Code, the cost of shifting service/line structure equipments shall be borne by

the consumer and there is no provision to exempt local body from payment of

shifting charges. As there is no provision in the regulation to exempt anybody from

payment of shifting charges, I am, unable to accept the argument of the Appellant

that , Board has to be meet the expenditure of the shifting charges.

11.122 Another argument putforth by the Appellants is no shifting charges was

collected from another consumer for removal of lines passing over his house and

plot by the respondent and hence he argued that he shall also be given the same

concession (ie) shifting of line is to be done without collecting any charges from him.

11.23 In this aspect, the respondent argued that due to technical reasons (ie)

unable to provide either strut pole or stay at location 6, the lines passing over the

adjouring premises were removed. As the removal of lines passing over the other

consumers premises was not due to the concerned consumer/individuals request

but due to technical reasons, the charges was not claimed from them. He also

argued that the clearance between the line and the premises in the said case are

as per electricity rules and there is no safety constrains also.

11.24 As the lines passing over the other consumer’s premises was removed

without any request from the concerned individuals and the existing lines are also

said to be safe, I am in agreement with the respondent that, if the shifting of line is

attributable to licensee, then the consumer need not pay the shifting cost. But, in

this case, the shifting is not done by the licensee on its own accord but due to

shifting of line passing over the Appellant’s premises. Hence, any work which was

carried out to fulfil the shifting of lines passing thro the Appellant’s premises has to

be borne by the Appellant only. But, at the same it has to be confirmed whether the

reasons explained by the respondent to remove the lines passing over the adjacent

premises is for bonafide reasons.

11.25 In view of the discussion, in the previous para, the Superintending

Engineer/Kancheepuram EDC is directed to depute an officer from other Division to

check whether the removal of lines between location 6 to 7 and 7 to 8 is for

20

bonafide technical reasons warranted due to site condition as argued by the

respondent and to take appropriate action based on the inspection report.

11.26 On the review of the estimate sanctioned for Rs.47,300/- it is noted the

estimate is not prepared as per regulation 5(6) of the supply code. Hence, the

Respondent is directed to prepare the estimate as detailed in regulation 5(6) of the

supply code. Further while preparing the estimate, the non provision of strut pole

and provision of stay set and the actual works executed, at ground reality may be

taken into consideration. After revising the estimate as per regulation 5(6) of the

Supply Code, as per actuals, the balance amount if any shall be refunded to the

appellant if the amount collected is more than the estimate prepared as per actuals.

Similarly, if the amount already collected is less, the balance amount may be

collected from the appellant.

12. Prayer -4 :

12.1 With regard to removal of line passing through other persons land, the

respondent argued that after removing the line at location 5 which is in the premises

of the Appellant, the pole at location no.6 needs support (i.e) either a stay or strut

pole has to be erected. But the land is private and the land owner has objected for

either erecting a strut pole or stay in the above place. Hence, due to site condition,

(i.e) on technical ground, the line passing over the adjacent premises was removed.

12.2 As the respondent has intimated that due to technical reasons, they are

forced to remove the line, I am of the opinion that, the Appellant can not seek such

facility for him also.

12.3 As the shifting estimate was sanctioned by Assistant Executive Engineer,

which cover the dismantling of the line passing over the adjacent owner’s premises, I

am of the view that the shifting is approved by Assistant Executive Engineer / O & M.

13. Prayer-5:

13.1 The Appellant prayed maximum compensation within the powers of Tamil

Nadu Electricity Ombudsman even though he has requested a compensation of Rs.5

lakhs in the original prayer.

13.2 In this connection, I would like to refer regulation 7(11) of the regulation for

CGRF & Electricity Ombudsman which is extracted below:-

“7(11) In respect of grievances on non implementation of standards of performance

of licensee on consumer service specified by the Commission under section 57(1) of

21

the Electricity Act 2003, if the forum finds that there was default of the licensee, it

shall only hold that the consumer is entitled to the compensation and shall state that,

the consumer if agreed, can accept the compensation prescribed by the Commission

in the relevant Regulations”.

13.3 On a careful reading of the said regulation 7(11) of CGRF & Electricity

Ombudsman it is noted that in respect of Grievances on non implementation of

standards of performance of licensee on consumer services specified by the

Commission under Section 57(1) of the Electricity Act 2003 alone, the CGRF &

Electricity Ombudsman can hold that the consumer is entitled for compensation.

13.4 As there is no provision to order compensation other than the one discussed

in para above, I am not issuing any order on the above issue.

14. Prayer 6:

14.1 The duty of the Electricity Ombudsman is to receive the appeal petition

against the order of CGRF and settle the issue through conciliation and mediation

between a licensee and the aggrieved parties or by passing an award in accordance

with Act and rules or regulations made thereunder.

14.2 Hence, I am of the view the Electricity Ombudsman can only settle the issue

between the licensee and an aggrieved consumer and it is the duty of the licensee to

take action if any needed on his employees based on the order of the Forum or

Electricity Ombudsman.

15. Observation:

15.1 It is noted that there was a damage of line and pole done by the Appellant on

4.1.2009. But the licensees officer has not taken any action to collect the damage

cost and restore the damaged line. The alternate route was kept in service without

taking any action to restore the power supply on the original route and no approval

was obtained to supply the other consumer through alternate route. Though supply

was restored to other consumers through alternate route, no action was taken either

to rectify the damage and restore supply on the route already available or get

approval to maintain the supply on the alternate route. The officer on duty has not

taken any action to recover the damage cost from the consumer but raise the issue

22

when he applies for a new service after a lapse of 3 years. Because of the above

act only this dispute has arisen. The Superintending Engineer/Kancheepuram EDC

may take suitable action to avoid such occurrences in future.

16. Conclusion :

16.1 (i) In view of my finding is para 11, the respondent is directed to prepare

the DCW estimate for shifting as per regulation 5(6) of the Supply Code. Further,

while preparing the estimate as per actuals the non provision of one pole at location

no.1, and provision of stay set etc as per the execution alone has to be taken into

account. If the estimated amount is less than the amount already paid by the

Appellant the balance amount has to be refunded to him. In case, the estimate cost

is more than the amount already paid by the Appellant, then the balance amount has

to be collected from him. The above exercise has to be completed within a month

from the date of this order and a compliance report shall be sent within 45 days

from the date of receipt of this order.

(ii) With the above findings, the A.P.No. 37 of 2014 is finally disposed of

by the Electricity Ombudsman. No Costs.

(A. Dharmaraj) Electricity Ombudsman To 1) Thiru K.Kathirvelu, B.E., No.54, Kamaraj Nagar, Sholingur & Post, Vellore District, Pincode 631 102 2) The Assistant Engineer / O & M, Erumbi Village & Post, Kancheepuram Electricity Distribution Circle Pallipat Taluk, Thiruvallur District, Pincode – 631 302. 3) The Chairman, (Superintending Engineer) Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum, Kanchipuram EDC, TANGEDCO (formerly TNEB), Olimohamedpet, Kanchipuram-631 502

23

4) The Chairman & Managing Director, TANGEDCO, NPKR Malaigai, 144, Anna Salai, Chennai – 600 002. 5) The Secretary Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission No.19A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 6) The Assistant Director (Computer) - FOR HOSTING IN THE TNEO WEBSITE PLEASE Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission, No.19-A, Rukmini Lakshmipathy Salai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.