KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

COMMISSION  VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL  NO.959/2012

JUDGMENT DATED:30.08.2014

PRESENT : 

JUSTICE SHRI. P.Q. BARKATHALI                        :  PRESIDENT

SHRI. V.V. JOSE                                                         : MEMBER

K. Siddhan,

S/o late Krishnankutty,                            

Krishna Nivas, Coimbatore Road,                                 : APPELLANT

Palakkad-1.

(By Adv: Sri. K.Dhananjayan)

            Vs.

1. The Kerala State Electricity Board,

Rep. by Secretary, Vaidyudhi Bhavan,

Pattom, Trivandrum – 4.

                                                                                                : RESPONDENTS

1. The Assistant Executive Engineer,

Electrical Sub Division,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Sulthanpet  Division,  Palakkad.

(By Adv: Sri.B. Sakthidharan Nair)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.P.Q. BARKATH ALI : PRESIDENT

This is an appeal filed by the complainant in CC.15/12 on the file of CDRF, Palakkad challenging the order of the Forum dated, January 13, 2012 dismissing the complaint.

2.      The case of the complainant as detailed in the complaint before the Forum in brief is this:-

Complainant has an electric connection with Consumer No.16724-0. The opposite parties/Electricity Board on 04.10.2011 issued a bill for Rs.42,609/- for the period from July 21, 2011 to September 23, 2011.  Average bi-monthly consumption of the complainant was only 250 units.  Complainant filed an objection dated, October 11, 2011 to second opposite party.  They have sent reply with a site mahazer.  It is stated therein that the PVC wire inside the main switch was damaged.  The said damage occurred due to the high voltage of the electricity.  Therefore complainant is not responsible for the high consumption of electricity noticed by the Board.  He prayed for cancellation of the bill and claimed compensation.

3.      First opposite party is Kerala State Electricity Board, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Secretary.  Second opposite party is the Assistant Executive Engineer, Sulthanpet Division, Palakkad. They in their version contended thus before the Forum:-  On a complaint by the complainant that there is abnormal recording of energy consumption at the premises of the complainant, the officials of the opposite party inspected the premises on October 1, 2011.  The reason for high consumption was found to be short of the PVC wire inside the main switch.  As a result of which electricity is lost without being utilized.  Any damage beyond the cut out fuse is the sole responsibility of the consumer.  It is not correct to say that due to high voltage the PVC wire inside the main switch was damaged.  That being so the complaint is to be dismissed.

4.      Complainant and opposite parties filed chief affidavits and marked Exts.A1 to A9 and Exts.B1 to B3 before the Forum.  On an appreciation of evidence the Forum found that complaint is maintainable but the complainant is responsible for not maintaining the main switch and earthing properly and dismissed the complaint.  Complainant has come up in appeal challenging the said order of the Forum.

5.      Heard both the counsels.

6.      The following points arise for consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act?
2. Whether the impugned order of the Forum can be sustained?

7.      The Forum found that complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act.  The opposite parties had not challenged the said finding by filing any appeal.  Therefore the above finding of the Forum has to be confirmed.

8.      The case of the complainant is that he found abnormal recording of energy consumption at his premises and therefore he filed a complaint before the opposite parties.  It is not disputed that officials of the opposite parties inspected the premises on 1.10.2011 and found that PVC wire inside the main switch was damaged and the energy is lost to earth without being utilized.

9.      The counsel for the opposite parties, the Electricity Board would argue that any damage beyond the cut out fuse is the sole responsibility of the consumer and that there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  The counsel for the complainant on the other hand would argue that the said damage occurred is due to fluctuations on the electricity supplied and that therefore complainant is not bound to pay the amount mentioned in the bill.  The counsel for the opposite parties argued that on inspection it was found that Earth Leakage Circuit Breaker (ELCB) has been by-passed which caused damage to the wire inside the main switch.  But regulation 23(7) of Kerala State Electricity Board Premises and Conditions of Supply 2005 provides ELCB is compulsory if the connected load exceeds 5KW.  Here the connected load is below 5KW.  Therefore complainant was not bound to provide ELCB.  The case of the complainant is that due to high voltage the wire inside the main switch was damaged which lead leakage of the current to the earth.  Opposite parties were not able to show otherwise.  That being so accepting the evidence of the complainant I hold that damage inside the main switch was caused due to the high voltage electricity supply by the KSEB and for the consequential damage caused they are responsible.  That being so the impugned order of the Forum has to be set aside.  The appeal has to be allowed.  Consequently the complaint has to be allowed cancelling the bill Ext.A1 dated:4.10.2011.

In the result appeal is allowed with a cost of Rs.5000/-.  The impugned order of the Forum dismissing the complaint is set aside.  The complaint is allowed. The disputed bill Ext.A1 dated:4.10.2011 is hereby set aside.

JUSTICE P.Q. BARKATHALI:  PRESIDENT

V.V. JOSE : MEMBER

VL.