SRI. R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER. The complaint is fileld for compensation and cost. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The electrical and Electronics devices of the complainant and 6 other neighbors were damaged because of the incident that 66 KV line was broken and fallen to single face line and 66KV current was passed through the line instead of 230 volt. The incident was happened on 25.8.2007 between 11.30 p.m. and 12 A.M. Even though the matter was informed to Electricity Office, Karunagappally they had not cared to look in to the matter. Only on the next day at about 10 AM the supply was reinstated. The damaged electrical meters of Vengara LPS and about 10 houses were reinstated. Even though the damages were happened to the electrical and electronic devices of complainant was informed to the officials they had not cared to enquire about it . The complainant along with the 6 neighbors had lodged a complaint before the 4th opp.party on 15.9.07 Headmistress of Vengara LPS Mrs. Geetha Chandradas, Member of Grama Panchayat and Bindu Sajeev, Karunagapally block panchayath had also filed separate complaints before the Exe. Engineer, KSEB., Karunagappally. But no responsibility was taken by the Electricity officials. Not even cared to visit the premises and to assess the losses sustained to the said consumers. The complainant and other consumers sent Advocate notices for which opp.parties sent reply stating that opp.parties were not responsible for the damages the Electricity Board is not liable to pay compensation. It is further stated that the incident was happened due to the natural calamity and if the fuse wire used were in good quality the high voltage will not entered into the house connections. Actually there was no natural calamity happened on that day. The alleged incident was happened only because of the negligent attitude of the KSEB authorities. By way of Using outdated devices in 6 KV line and without periodical repairing the KSEB authorities committed deficiency in service. The complainant sustained loss for the damage of TV Rs.14,500/- DVD player Rs. 4,000/-,CD cassette player Rs.3,000/- world space satellite Radio Rs.2,000/- and V Guard stabilizer Rs.1,000/- Hence the complainant filed the complaint for getting compensation and other reliefs. The opp.party contented that the complaint is baseless and it is not sustainable. It is true that the complainant is a consumer of opp.parties with Consumer No.13898 of Karunagappally North Section. On 25.8.2007 at about 11.13 PM Disk of the 66 KV line which goes through the southern side of Vengara LDS was slipped from the chain and fallen to the singleface line. At that time itself the electricity connection was discharged as the automatic system was activated. The fuse was made off by the workers of Karunagappally North section charged other lines after avoiding possibilities of entering excess electric current to the single face line. If an incident was happened as alleged by the complainant, the meter also would be damaged. The complainant had not lodged any complaint before Karunagappally Section or Karunagappaly Electical Division. The statement that the Electrical devices of complaint were damaged is not true. The opp.parties had given reply for the Advocate notice sent by the complainant. The incident was happened because of the heavy rain and storm . No deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties. There is no chance for any accident as the Electric connection would be discharged as automatic relay system is using in Sub Station. It is the duty of the complainant to install safety devices. If the damages were happened, it may be because of the usage of low rating fuse wire. The repairs and maintenance were conduced properly and timely. The materials used by the Board were good in quality. The complainant filed affidavit. Exhibits PW.1 examined. Exts. P1 to P4 series were marked. From the side of opp.parties. DW.1 and 2 were examined. Exts. D1 and D2 were marked. The points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties 2. Compensation and cost. Points 1 and 2 It is an admitted fact that the complainant is a consumer of opp.parties. The allegation of the complainant is that the incident was happened because the 66 KV line was broken and fallen on the single face line. But the opp.parties contended that the disk was fallen on the single face line because of the slipping of Disk from the insulation which happened due to because heavy rain and storm. It is true that a dangerous incident was happened. The contention is only about the reasoning of the incident. The opp.parties have not submitted any evidence to prove that there was heavy rain and strong wind on that day. Opp.parties stated that if excess electricity passes to the single face line the meter would be damaged. . The complainant stated in her deposition that the meter reading was standing still and the complaint about this was not cared by the authorities. If the meter is still it is obvious that some damage has been caused to it. Admittedly the meter was not tested. Only on the basis of the oral submission that the meter was not damaged we cannot come to the conclusion that the Electronic components of the complainant were not damaged. The burden to establish that the meter is not damaged is on the opp.party. The opp.parties contended that the damages were avoidable had the complainant used fuse wire of proper rating and security devices and opp.parties were not responsible for not doing so. The complainant stated that they had used materials of good quality. It is the duty of KSEB officials to checkup the wiring and to ensure that the wiring was proper and materials used were good in quality before giving electric connection. DW.1 has stated in his deposition that over current will be passed when the lines touched together or when any materials fell over to the line. Opp.parties admitted in their version affidavit and deposition that an external material has fallen on the single face line. The opp.parties were not consistent about the reasoning of the incident. In the version they have stated that it was happened because of slipping of Disk from insulation. It was repeated in the II para of affidavit. But in the II para of Affidavit itself it is stated that on 26.8.07 the opp.parties had reinstated the 66 KV line which was broken. The allegation of the complaint is that the opp.parties had not cared about her oral complaint and failed to verify and to assess damages. If such an incident was reported, the KSEB officials are bound to visit and verify the matter. No material furnished by the opp.parties to disprove the allegation of the complainant. Even after the receipt of Advocate notice opp.parties have not cared to enquire about the matter.. Considering all these circumstances and on perusal of the documents we came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of opp.party. The Points found accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed. The opp.parties are directed to pay Rs.24,650/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Dated this the 30th day of May, 2009 . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Vijayalekshmi List of documents for the complainant P1. – Electricity Bill P2. - Bill by Darsana Traders dated 26.12.2006 P3. – Ration Card P4. – series - Applications to Thodiyoor Grama Panchayat List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1. – Kaladharan DW.2. – M.V. Madhu List of documents for the opp.parties D1. – Particulars of operation dated 25.8.2007 D2. – Operation diary | 
