KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No. 433/2016

JUDGMENT DATED: 05.10.2023

(Against the Order in C.C. 268/2014 of CDRC, Wayanad)

PRESENT:

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.                                                    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SRI. RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.                                        : MEMBER

APPELLANTS:

1. The Manager/Proprietor, Surabhi Electricals & Hardware, Meenangady P.O., Wayanad.

2. The Managing Director/Manager, Ship Switch Gears (India), 23, Basanth Nagar, Sodal Road, Jalandhar-4, Punjab-144 004.

(By Adv. Boby K. Joseph)

                                                Vs.

RESPONDENTS:

1. Annakutty, W/o Paulose, Palliparambil House, Nambikollu, Nenmenikannu P.O., Sulthan Bathery, Wayanad.

2. The Chairman, KSEB, Vydyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.

3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical Major Section, KSEB, Sulthan Bathery Post, Wayanad.

(By Adv. B. Sakthidharan Nair for R2 & R3)

JUDGMENT

SRI. AJITH KUMAR D.: JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the third and fourth opposite parties in C.C. No 268/2014 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (will be referred to as District Commission for brevity) against the order dated 27.04.2016 directing the appellants to pay the complainant Rs. 15,542/- with interest @ 12%, Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as costs.

2.  The complainant had filed the complaint against the KSEB and the appellants alleging deficiency of service with regard to the excessive consumption of electric energy.  Complainant was the bearer of domestic electric connection with Consumer No. 40286.  On 25.11.2014 the meter reader attached to the second opposite party had inspected the premises of the complainant and after verification issued a bill for Rs. 15,949/- towards electricity consumption of 1915 units.  Complainant raised a protest that he never consumed such units of energy.  Then the second opposite party visited the premises and reported that the excess consumption is on account of the defects in the main switch.  But he directed the complainant to remit the bill amount and warned that if he fails to do so the supply will be stopped.  The main switch was manufactured by the 4^th opposite party and sold to the complainant by the third opposite party.  The complainant had sought for an order of injunction prohibiting the first and second opposite parties from disconnecting the electric supply and to cancel the excess bill issued by the first and second opposite parties.

3.  The first and second opposite parties filed a joint version that the bill was issued in accordance with the consumption of electricity and there was no fault on their part.  According to them the main switch fixed at the premises was defective and hence leakage of electricity occurred which resulted in excess reading.  There was no deficiency of service on their part.

4.  The third and fourth opposite parties filed a joint version stating the following contentions:

There was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on their part.  The consumer is a stranger and there is no privity of contract between themselves and the complainant.  The complainant did not file the bill or warranty card with respect to the purchase of the main switch.  The main switch was purchased by him and it worked for one year and 10 months without any complaints.  There was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice.  They would seek for the dismissal of the complaint.

5.  The evidence consists of the testimony of the complainant as PW1.  Exts. A1 to A6 and X1 marked for the complainant.  OPWs 1 to 3 were examined for the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties.  Exts. B1& B2 were also marked.

6.  The appellants would contend that the District Commission, without appreciating the evidence on record had passed the order.  It did not consider the expert evidence that the total admissible load of electricity was 3790 Watts, but actually a load of 5408 Watts was found connected at the premises.  The commissioner had reported that high gauge wire was fixed in the fuse in the main switch which caused passing of electricity beyond its capacity and it caused damage to the electric rode in the main switch.  The complainant had no authority to cause alterations in the main switch.  There was no manufacturing defect to the main switch as reported by the expert.

7.  Heard both sides.  Perused the records received from the District Commission.

8.  While deciding a dispute regarding excess consumption of electricity the expert evidence assumes significance.  Ext. C1 throws light into the real cause of the excess consumption.  As per the KSEB Records the admitted load is 3790 Watts but actually a load of 5408 watts of electricity was connected.  So, a possibility of excess passage of electricity through the main switch cannot be ruled out.  From the fact reported by the expert it could be seen that the operating rode of the main switch was in a partially burnt stage which would clearly indicate passage of excess electricity.  Admittedly the main switch was installed more than one year back and the excess reading occurred recently.  There was also indication in the premises that connection was made bypassing the main switch pointing out that an inexperienced electrician had effected improper adjustments in the electric circuit at the premises.  Even after noticing these factors the District Commission had reached a finding that the excess reading of electricity arose due to the defect in the main switch.  A possibility of causing damages to the main switch by consumption of more electricity than the admissible load cannot be ruled out.  If this be the position one cannot reach at a conclusion that excess reading of the electricity was only due to the defect in the main switch.

9.  On a consideration of the above stated facts and circumstances it cannot be found that there was deficiency of service on the part of the  appellants/third and fourth opposite parties in respect of the sale of the main switch.  So no liability could be fastened on the appellants.  The District Commission had failed to consider this aspect.  Therefore we are inclined to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.

In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The order passed by the District Commission is set aside and the complaint shall stand dismissed.

       AJITH KUMAR  D. : JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                                        RADHAKRISHNAN K.R.  : MEMBER

jb