PRESENT: SRI P.V. NAGESWARA RAO, M.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT

      SMT. B. DURGA KUMARI, B.A. B.L., MEMBER

           SRI S. ABDUL KHADER BASHA, B.Sc., MEMBER

Tuesday, 3^rd June 2008

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.  23 / 2008

C. Vijaya Prasad, S/o Venkata Subbaiah,

Hindu, aged 38 years, Practicing Advocate,

Resident of D.No. 7/552-2, Upstairs, jayanagar colony,

Sankarapuram, Kadapa.                                                            ….. Complainant.

Vs.

1. The Superintendent Engineer (Operation)

    A.P. Power Distribution Co. Ltd., Kadapa.  

2. The Deputy Executive Engineer/A.E, (Operation),  

    A.P. Power Distribution Co. Ltd.,  East Section, Kadapa.

3. The A.D.E. (Operations) A.P. Power Distribution Co. Ltd.,

    Kadapa.                                                                               …….. Respondents.

This complaint coming on this day for final hearing on 30-5-2008 in the presence of Sri Ajaykumar Veena, A. Mallikarjuna Reddy and M. Yasmeen Begum, Advocates for complainant and Sri C.S. Riyazuddin, Advocate, for Respondents and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt. B. Durga Kumari, Member),  

 is a practicing Advocate at Kadapa and he is residing in a rented house bearing D.No. 7/552-2, Jayanagar colony, Kadapa.  The said house has got an Electric Service Connection bearing HSC No. 47023, which stands in the name of owner of the house.  The complainant was paying electric charges regularly to R3,  on 25-9-2006 the employees of the respondents have erected a New pole by replacing the old pole for which the complainant’s house was connected.  Before erecting new pole the power supply was cutoff and after completion of the same the power was re-supplied.  There was abnormal supply of electricity to the house of the complainant and due to which high voltage the articles like computer, tube lights, Fridge, Tape recorder were got damaged.  The complainant lodged a complaint through phone to R3 and informed that the above said articles got damaged due to high voltage of electricity.   

  The complainant further alleged that due to negligent act of the respondents staff he sustained loss to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- towards damage of computer, Rs. 200/- towards burnt of tubes, Rs. 500/- towards burnt of tube light chokes, Rs. 10,000/- towards damage of fridge and Rs. 2000/- towards damage of tape recorder.  Totally he sustained loss to the tune of   Rs. 47,700/- on account of high voltage.   The complainant issued legal notice to the respondents, dt.  6-10-2006 calling upon the respondents to pay loss sustained to the articles. 

  The R3 issued reply notice to the complainant with all untenable allegations.   In their reply notice they did not denied the damages.  But they find fault with the complainant that they have provided service connection to the house only after pre-inspection and after satisfying the conditions.  The complainant alleged deficiency of service on the part of the respondents as his house received high voltage due to negligent act of the respondents employees which caused damages to the articles in his house.  The respondents are liable to pay costs and compensation to the complainant.  Hence, this  complaint. 

  As per records the house HSC No. 47023 was in the name of Smt. M. Lakshmi Devi is the owner of the said house and the respondents did not know whether the complainant is the tent in the said house.  It is true that the respondents erected a new pole in place of damaged old pole and reconnected all service connection about 21 houses to the new supply was changed.   But no information or any complainant was received from any consumer of the above 21 houses which includes the HSC No. 47023 about high voltage or the negligence of this department.  If really there is high voltage supply, the other house owners too might have complained about this damage.  But no single complaint was received by the department, and without any, documentary evidence the present complaint is filed for unlawful gain. 

  The complainant has not provided any precautionary measures like Stabilizer to the computer and Refrigerator.  They have mentioned in the inspection notes and the complainant also signed in the said paper.  The consumer has not provided proper rated fuse wire, no proper connections were provided and no stabilizer is provided to the computer and refrigerator and the damage if any, might have occurred due to improper fuse rating and earthling and failure to have protective device like stabilizer etc.,  The respondents further stated that they are supplying the electrical energy to the consumers in safe and proper manner having vast area.  The complainant has failed to provide precautionary measures to his articles and there is no deficiency of service on their part and they are not liable to pay any compensation or costs to the complainant.   

  On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A7 were marked and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondents.

       On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.

       Whether the complainant is entitled to receive Rs. 47,700/- towards damages caused to the articles?

      Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the respondents?

iii.              To what relief?

Point Nos. 1 & 2.  Heard both side and perused the records available with the forum and the forum made the following order.  The complainant is residing a rented house bearing D.No. 7/552-2, Jayanagar colony, Kadapa.  On 25-9-2006 the employees of the respondents erected a new electricity pole by replacing old pole.  After erection they have reconnected the complainant’s house service connection.   After some time the said connection received high voltage of electricity due to which the articles in the complainant’s house like computer, tube lights and tape recorder were got damaged and the said fact was informed to R3 through phone.  On 26-9-2006 the respondents staff visited the complainant’s house and made some repairs to the New pole and after that the service connection received normal voltage.  The complainant issued legal notice to the respondents to pay the damages caused to his articles due to high voltage.   Ex. A1 is the X/c of legal notice dt. 6-10-2006 from complainant  to the respondents.  Ex. A2 is the copy of reply notice from R3 to complainant, dt. 24-10-2006.  Ex. A3 is the carbon copy of inspection notes issued by the respondents, dt. 12-10-2006.  After receiving the notice the respondents staff visited the complainant’s house on 12-10-2006 and in their inspection notes they have noted that the complainant has not provided Stabilizer to the computer and refrigerator and he has not used proper rating of wire, which caused damage to the articles.  If the complainant have used protective devices like Stabilizer to the costly equipment to over come voltage fluctuations in power supply but he has not taken any steps towards that part. 

              The complainant requested many times to the respondents to pay the damages which caused to his articles.  But the respondents have not responded.  So the complainant filed the present complaint.  Ex. A4 is the electrical bill for Rs. 700/- towards purchase of tubes and chowks.  Ex. A5 is the certificate issued by the private electrician, dt. 27-9-2006.  Ex. A6 is the electricity bill with regard to the service connection HSC No. 47023 and Ex. A7 is the certificate issued by Galaxy computers, dt. 26-9-2006.   The respondents in their counter denied that there is no high voltage to the service connection of the complainant.  But the complainant failed to provide stabilizer to the electrical goods which caused the damage to the said articles.  After erecting new pole in place of old damaged pole and they have reconnected about 21 house services and no single complaint was received by them, except this complaint.   If really the high voltage of electricity was supplied and the said damage occurred to the articles as alleged by the complainant.  Why the other connection people have not filed any single complaint.  It is true that the complainant’s house was reconnected after erecting new pole in place of old damaged pole and the respondents accepted the same.  After reconnection the complainant’s house received high voltage of electricity and due to which the electrical articles were got damaged and on the complaint of the complainant the respondents visited the house of the complainant and made some repairs to the pole and after that he received normal voltage of electricity.   In their Inspection the respondents has not denied that the articles were damaged, but they put blame on the complainant that he failed to provide protective device like stabilizer to the computer and refrigerator.   They were silent about the tubes and chowks and other articles.

Hyderabad.  The Lordship have categorically stated that “when the electricity board undertakes to supply electrical energy at a particular voltage”, and fluctuations in that voltage should be restricted to certain acceptable parameters; and unless the authorities of the board come forward with good reasons for the wide fluctuations as a fact found in the voltage of the electrical energy supplied.   The question can be looked at from a different angle as well.  If electrical energy is treated as goods then the voltage at which it has to be supplied to the domestic consumers has to be maintained at the agreed level, failing which, the goods supplied by the board will not be of the specified quality.    On that basis also the board will be liable.  To substantiate his arguments the respondents counsel filed done decision 2002 (4) ALT 5.2 (DN SC) C.P. Act 1986 Sections 21, 17 and 11 – abuse of the process of Consumer Forum.  The appellants moved the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.  The said decision is not applicable to the present case.  We are of the opinion that the respondents are deficient in service as they have.; failed to supply the normal power to the complainant’s service connection, which caused damage to the articles.  The respondents are liable to pay the costs to the damaged articles.  The respondents cannot escape from its liability. 

Point No. 3.  In the result the complaint is allowed directing the respondents to pay Rs. 47,700/- (Rupees forty seven thousand seven hundred only) towards damages caused to the articles, to pay Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs of this complaint.  The respondents are directed to comply the order of the Hon’ble Forum within one month from the date of receipt of the order. 

rd June 2008

MEMBER                                      MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant    :       NIL                       For Respondents :            NIL

Exhibits marked for complainant:-   

Ex. A1         X/c of notice from complainant to respondents, dt. 6-10-2006.

Ex. A2         Reply notice from R3 to complainant, dt. 24-10-2006.

Ex. A3         Carbon copy of inspection issued by R3, dt. 12-10-2006.

Ex. A4         Bill issued by Porwal Electricals, dt. 25-9-2006 for Rs. 700/-.

Ex. A5         Certificate issued by Private electrician, dt. 27-9-2006.

Ex. A6         Electricity bills HSC No. 2112101047023 (3 Bills).

Ex. A7         Certificate issued by Galaxy Computers, dt. 26-9-2006.

Exhibits marked for Respodnent.       NIL

MEMBER                                       MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

1)     Sri Ajaykumar Veena, A. Mallikarnuna Reddy and M. Yasmen   Begum, Advocates, Kadapa. 

 2)   C.S. Riyazuddin, Advocate, Kadapa.

         1) Copy was made ready on     :

2) Copy was dispatched on      :

3) Copy of delivered to parties :

B.V.P                                                - - - -