Anil Kumar Srivastava filed a consumer case on 16 Nov 2018 against CPWD & BSES Rajdhani Private Ltd. in the New Delhi Consumer Court. The case no is CC/183/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 22 Nov 2018.
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI
(DISTT. NEW DELHI),
‘M’ BLOCK, 1STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,
NEW DELHI-110001
Case No.C.C./183/2016 Dated:
In the matter of:
Anil Kumar Srivastava
S/o Sh. R.R. Srivastava
R/o 701, Type V B, Lok Sabha Secretariat Residential Complex
R.K. Puram, Sec.2, New Delhi …… Complainant
Versus
Through Director General
Nirman Bhawan
New Delhi.
Through Chairman
BSES Bhawan, Nehru Place
New Delhi-110019
…….Opposite Parties
MEMBER : H.M. VYAS
ORDER
The gist of the complaint is that on account of deficiency in service on the part of the OP he has suffered losses. It is alleged that at around 16 hrs. on 11/01/2016, there was fluctuation in the electricity voltage which caused the CPU of the Desktop computer defunct as a result of erratic power supply despite UPS. The matter was brought to the notice of both the OPs and the OP-1 rectified one of the tube lights but could not rectify other appliances damage. The complainant informed DGM, BSES on 12/01/2016 and also the AE (Electrical) CPWD on 12/01/2016, via e-mail followed by registered post letter dated 13/01/2016 and letter to AE (Electrical) on 21/01/2016. The OP-2 on 14/01/2016 informed by e-mail that the mistake was not on their part, but due to poor workmen ship of OP-1-CPWD. The CPWD vide letter dated 21/01/2016, responded that the problem was due to high supply of voltage by BSES which has been persisting in the complex for last 6 months. The complainant stated that matter was brought to their knowledge many a times time on telephone and by letters of CPWD and Resident Welfare Association Locality. It was also stated by CPWD for the said letter and that particularly, on 11/01/2016 the voltage was 253 which again caused damage to appliances. The high voltage was being supplied continuously by BSES but no remedial steps taken viz. installation of step down transformer or any other devices to regular the supply, therefore, there was clear deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. The complainant waited but nothing was done by OPs.
Following prayer has made by complainant:-
“It is therefore prayed that Hon’ble Forum may kindly award compensation of about Rs. 27,300/- (twenty thousand three hundred only) in favour of the applicant.”
OP-1 was proceeded Ex-parte after notice on 09/09/2016. OP-2 contested the complaint stating that the complainant approached this Forum with unclean hands and denied deficiency in services and all allegations leveled against it. Further, it is stated that no cause of action arose against the OP-2. It is however, stated that the power fluctuation due to which the complainant appliances were allegedly damaged is to be proved by complainant and complainant has not filed any such proof. It is admitted that on 11/01/2016 some maintenance were carried out on 11/01/2016 by the OP-2 at Lok Sabha Secretariat, Residential Complex, R.K. Puram, Sec-2, New Delhi and notice was served on CPWD-OP-1 and the Consumers of society. During the maintenance period, the distribution transformers and all LT switched were kept off during shut down period. After carrying out maintenance work, the Distribution Transformers were switched on (and kept no load from 03.45 PM to 04.00 PM) and all necessary parameters were measured by OP-2 and were found within permissible limits. The OP-2 admitted receipt of e-mail dated 12/01/2016 and the complainant was informed appropriately. It is stated that the CPWD was also carrying out some maintenance work there. Denying all allegation and deficiency in service, prayer to dismiss the complaint with cost is made.
The complainant filed has filed rejoinder to the written statement and the evidence by way of affidavit alongwith number of documents. OP-2 has also filed evidence by way of affidavit affirming the text/version of the written statement. Both the parties have filed their written statement, oral arguments also addressed.
We have considered the material placed before us and the arguments of the parties with relevant provisions of law.
The complainant has placed on record letter sent by CPWD RWA of the locality, the e-mails sent to the OP-2 on the day (i.e. 11/01/2016) of incidence. There is an admission of the OP-2 that some maintenance work was carried on said day. There is no rebuttal or denial to the letter of CPWD where by the intimation regarding the high voltage supply was given to OP-2. The OP-1 was proceeded ex-parte on 09/09/2016 after notice as none appeared or filed written statement on its behalf.
From the above facts and discussions, the fluctuation in the voltage/supply of high voltage current in the locality vulnerable to cause damages to the electrical appliances cannot be ruled out.
we, therefore, hold OP-2 to be deficient in service and award a sum of Rs. 6800/- for repair of appliances besides compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for harassment and cost of litigation. The OP-2 shall comply the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required.
Announced in open Forum on 16/11/2018.
The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.
File be consigned to record room.
(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)
PRESIDENT
(NIPUR CHANDNA) (H M VYAS)
MEMBER MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.