IN THECONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,  KOLLAM

DATED THIS THE  30^thDAYOF SEPTEMBER 2021

Present: -    Sri.E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President

                    Smt.S.Sandhya   Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member

                   Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

CC.No.59/2018

K.Neelambaran,

Dream light, Nadukkunnu,

Pathanapuram(P.O.) 689 695                                                       :           Complainant           

V/S

1. Executive Engineer,

KSEB Division, Punalur                                                                

(By Adv.K.Shaji)

2. Assistant Executive Engineer,

KSEB Sub Division, Pathanapuram                                            :          Opposite parties

(By ThattamalaM.Navas)

3. Assistant Engineer,

KSEB Section, Pathanapuram.

(By ThattamalaM.Navas)

ORDER

Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member

1. This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-

The complainant is the consumer of KSEB Electrical Sub Division,Pathanapuram vide consumer No.8020254.The new electric line was drawn on 09.02.2018 for the purpose of street light near by the house of the complainant.  The complainant was not in the station for two days during which the new line was drawn.  On 11.02.2018 when the complainant reached his house and switched on the electrical equipment in his house his TV was burned and two lights and fan become default.  Water pump fitted in well was also not working.  The complainant got the equipment examined by an electrician and it was understood that when the new line was drawn the electric line through which connection was given to the house of the complainant was wrongly fitted which caused the burning of the equipments.  This fact was informed to the KSEB office.  On 11.02.2018 by 6.00 p.m. two workers from KSEB come to site and rectified themistake.  As per the advice, the complainant tried to operate the equipments and all the equipments worked except those that were damaged.  On the basis of the complaint dated 12.02.2018 filed by him the Assistant Executive,  Sub Engineer,, two line man come to the house of the complainant and prepared a mahassar.

3. The TV set, 2 fans and two tube lights of the complainant were damaged only due to the irresponsibility and carelessness of the KSEB employees.The mechanic told the complainant that for the purpose of repairing the damaged equipments Rs.17,000/- is needed.The complainant had repaired the TV and motor of the fan and purchased new tube light thereby he had spent Rs.3,610/-.  He had also spend Rs.250/- towards auto rickshaw charge.  The bills for the same are produced along with the complaint.  The complainant claims 3,860/- towards loss and Rs.10,000/- as compensation along with Rs.2,000/- as costs.  Hence the complaint.
4. The opposite parties filed version resisting the averments in the complaint.  The opposite parties admit that the complainant is their consumer.  The opposite parties further contend that they have inspected electrical post and connection and electrical equipments of the complainant.  It is revealed that the fuse units does not  have any defects.  The TV set of the complainant is having the trade name BPL which is manufactured more than 25 years.  No other electric equipments of the complainant is damaged.  Even if phase and neutral is connected on the street main and neutral is connected no damage will be caused to electrical equipments and hence the grievance of the complainant is false.  The opposite parties are not bound to compensate the complainant.  The TV which is 25 year old and tube lights are damaged only due to its age.

5. The complainant had produced a fabricated bill only to mislead the commission.  From the month of July of the last year onwards, bills are issued on the basis of GST registration.  But the bill produced by the complainant does notmention anything about the GST.  Due to the acts of the opposite parties, theelectricity connection to the complainant’s house was not disrupted.  As the complainanthas not suffered any losses and hence there is no need for any mental sufferings and the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the opposite parties.  The inspection conducted by the opposite parties in the house of the complainant would reveal that there is no deficiency in service.  The complainant declined to accept the inspection report from the opposite party which itself makes it clear that the complaint is false and frivolous.  Hence the opposite parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint.

6.       In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether any damage was caused to the complainant by drawing a new line for street light?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief sought for?

7.       Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.P1to P3 documents marked.  Opposite parties examined two witnesses as RW1 and RW2 and got marked B1 to B3.  Both complainant and opposite parties did not file anynotes of argument.Heard both sides.

Point No.1&2

8.       PW1 is none other than the complainant.  The evidence of PW1 would show that a new electric line was drawn on 09.02.2018 for the purpose of street lightthrough the public road near the house of the complainant that the complainant along with his family was out of station for two days and on 11.02.2018 when he reached his house and switched on the electrical equipments TV has been damaged of two

tube lights and one fan became not ina working condition.  The water pump fitted in the well also not working.  After verification done by deputing an electrician it was revealed that new electric line was drawn and its connection was wrongly given to the complainant’s house.  This is the reason for the burning of equipments.  This fact

was intimated to the KSEB on the same day and accordingly deputed two workerswho came to the site immediately and rectified the mistake.  As per the their advice complainant tried to work out theequipmentsexcept TV and two tube lights all other equipments were found working that he preferred a written complaint before Pathanapuram electrical section on 12.02.2018 and on the same day itself the Assistant Engineer, Sub Engineer, two line man come to the site and Ext.P2/B1mahassar was prepared in the presence of the complainant.

9.       According to the opposite party they had conducted a detailed inspection and prepared Ext.P2/B1mahazar in the presence of the complainant and witnesses and the findings arrived were made aware to the complainant and he understood and satisfied with the same.  The said fact is stated in Ext.P1/B2 report also. After a detailed examination and inspection the opposite party KSEB has found out that the energy metre of LPT (Sl.No.40316296) is in working condition.  The fuse unit whichcontrol and regulate the electrical connection in the house was not having any damage thereafter the equipments in home were inspected and on inspection it was revealed that the TV and one tube light was not in a working condition and all other equipments in the house were in working condition.  The TV and light has been damaged due to its old age.  According to the opposite parties the TV is BPL company made and having 25 years old.  The allegation of the complainant that motor connected in the well has been damaged but on inspection and examination it was in a working condition.  According to the opposite parties the damage caused to the equipments in the complainant’s house was not due to any negligent or irresponsible and careless act of the opposite parties/KSEB.  So they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant.  Ext.P3/B3reply letter issued byPathanapuram Electrical Section office to the complainant makes the above facts

clear.  The new line drawn for the street light is with utmost safety and in a careful manner.  Due to drawing of the street light line no damages was caused to the equipments of the complainant.  The main contention of the opposite party is that ifelectric supplywas passed into two phases together at a same time then energy meter

fuse unit and other electric equipments installed will be damaged and further contends that there is no default of supply of electricity from the supply wire to energy meter.  The above materials on records remains undisputed.

10.     The specific allegation in the complaint is that on 11.01.2018 when he arrived at his home from after a tour with his family and when he switched on electrical equipments like TV, two fans and two tube lights and one motor fitted at the well the got damaged.  But as per Ext.P2/B1 site mahassar and also as per Ext.P3 reply dated 12.02.2018.  05.04.2018 in response the grievance petition filed by the complainant it is stated that on inspection by the KSEB officials it was revealed that one old BPL company make TV and one tube light has not become functioning and all other electrical equipments including the electric motor fitted on the well of the complainant were working.  The complainant has not disputed the facts noted in the site mahassarprepared inpresence of complainant and other officials.  The complainant has also no case that he has repaired the other electrical equipments which is claimed to have been damaged with the assistance of any electrician.   In the light of the above Ext.P2/B1 site mahassar the entire case of the complainant falls to the ground since one old TV and one tube light alonewere found not working.  According to the opposite party the TV is BPL company make and as per the serial number which is about 25 years old and therefore the functioning of the TV has naturally stopped.  There is every chance of stopping the function of electric tube after one or two year.

11.     The specific case of the complainant is that the electrician of the locality has told him that it is due to the fault of the electricity board the entire episode occurred.

But the said electrician has not been examined by the complainant in this case to prove the above specific allegations.

12.     It is further to be pointed out that during the inspection by the Sub Engineer Electrical Section, Pathanapuram along with the Assistant Engineer, Electrical Section one Sujith Kumar and in the presence of the complainant the following facts are noted in Ext.P2 site mahazar.]cn-tim-[-\-bnÂI«vHu«v ^yq-kn\pwho«n-\-Is¯ sk£³ ^yq-kp-IÄ¡pw XI-cmÀ kw`-hn-¨n-«n-Ãm-¯-Xm-Wv.  It is also brought out in evidence through RW1 that the defects of electrical equipments such as TV and one fan has not occurred due to the drawing of additional line for street light that apart from the  complainant other customers are residing adjacent the new line but they have not made any complaint what so ever.  Evidence of RW1would further show that if the disconnected neutral wire has been connected wrongly as alleged by the complainant there is no chance of getting any electric supply at the residence of the complainant.  If electricity passes through phase electrical equipments will not work at all.  In the light of the above materials on record it is crystal clear that there is no chance of sustaining any defect on the TV and fan of the complainant due to the drawing of  street line or due to the wrong reconnection of the line after drawing the street line.

13.     On evaluating the entire materials available on record we come to the conclusion that complainant has not succeeded in establishing that the electricalequipments installed at his residence became defective and not working due to the deficiency in service on the part of KSEB and its employees. The point answered accordingly.

Point No.3

In the result complaint stands dismissed.  Parties are directed to suffer other respective costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant  Smt. MinimolS. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the  Open Commission this the  30^thday of  September  2021.

                                                                         STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-

                                             E.M .MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-               

                                            S.SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-

                                                                                                                                Forwarded/By Order

                                                                                                                                 Senior Superintendent

INDEX

Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-

PW1                : Neelambaran

Documents marked for the  complainant

Ext.P1             : Complaint filed by the complainant before the opposite party dtd.12.2.18

Ext.P2             : Site Mahazar

Ext.P3             : Reply letter issued by Pathanapuram Electrical Section office to the complainant

Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-

RW1                : Justin Fernandez A.

RW2                : Ayoobkhan

Documents marked for opposite party:-

Ext.B1             : Site Mahazar

Ext.B2             : Reply notice

Ext.B3             : Reply notice