Compensation is warranted for property taken by the electricity board after disconnection, per Ombudsman’s ruling.

JUDGMENT

The prayer in W.P.(C) No.33712 of 2023 is for implementing the directions issued by the State Electricity Ombudsman in Ext.P2 order. It is the same order which is challenged by the Kerala State Electricity Board in W.P.(C)

No.39546 of 2023.

2. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.33712 of 2023 was given an electricity connection for agricultural purposes bearing consumer No.114584 8026991 in 2018. The petitioner contends that at the time of giving the supply, the Board informed that four electric poles are to be installed to draw service lines to the pump house in the farm from the public road and that the cost has to be paid by the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.58,656/- to the KSEB on 30.07.2018.

3. The petitioner alleges that the electrical lines were drawn in his absence above the jackfruit saplings. On the request of the petitioner, the Board informed that they were ready to shift the lines to another pump house, which is closer to the public road, for which only one electric pole was needed instead of the four electric poles that had been fixed by the Board. Accordingly, the connection was granted, and the Board has taken away the three electric poles despite the objection of the petitioner that he had paid for the same. Apart from that, Rs.5,525/- was also realised as shifting charges.

4. The petitioner, accordingly, filed a complaint before the Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum (CGRF) seeking compensation for the three electric posts taken possession of by the Board or to refund the proportionate cost of the three electric poles paid by the complainant. The CGRF dismissed the complaint preferred by the petitioner, against which he approached the State Electricity Ombudsman. Through Ext.P2 order, the Ombudsman allowed the appeal and found that the electric posts will be treated as the property of the licensee as long as they are connected to the distribution system of the licensee. In the instant case, since the line was disconnected, the Board cannot refuse payment to the petitioner on the ground that it is their property. Accordingly, the Ombudsman passed the following:-

“Decision: -

From the analysis done and I he conclusions arrived at as detailed above, following decisions are hereby taken:

(1) The depreciated cost of the posts are to be assessed and the estimate is to be revised as per Clause 83 (3) of Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014 and the amount, if any, is there to be refunded to the appellant.

(2) The order of CGRF, Southern Region, Kottarakkara in OP No.

01/2022 dated 24-05-2022 is set aside.

Having concluded and decided as above, it. is ordered accordingly. No order on costs.”

5. Though a review petition was filed by the Board before the Ombudsman, the same was also rejected through Ext.P7 order produced in W.P.(C) No.39546 of 2023. For implementing the same, the consumer filed W.P.(C) No.33712 of 2023. The Board has filed W.P.(C) No.39546 of 2023, challenging the said order essentially on the contention that the whole service line, meter, and other associated equipment are deemed to be the property of the licensee and shall remain under their control so long as they are connected to the distribution system of the licensee.

6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing on both sides and in consideration of Regulation 24(1) of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2014 , the contentions of the Board cannot be accepted, as the service line, meter, and other associated equipment are deemed to be the property of the licensee and shall remain under their control so long as they are connected to the distribution system of the licensee. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that three poles taken away by the Board were not connected to the distribution system. Under such circ