Sri. Ashok Kumar J.Dhole<br /> President,<br /> <br /> 1. Complainant R.Saraswathi is a practicing Advocate who has filed this Complaint against the MESCOM (represented by Assistant Executive Engineer) claiming total damages of Rs.11,375/- with cost on the ground of deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 2. It is the simple case of the Complainant that she was owner of a colour T.V. named “Videocon” bearing model KSI No.11531. This colour T.V. was purchased from “Akshata Enterprises”, Deveraja Mohalla, Mysore on 28.10.2005. It is further contended that the Complainant was using this T.V. in her residential house bearing No.3176/1, II Ediga, Pulikeshi Road, Mandimohalla, Bannimantap Post, Mysore – 15. It is further contended that on 10.08.2005 at about 3.15 p.m, when Complainant switched on the T.V, there was burning smell, and she immediately switched-off the T.V. It was taken to Akshata Enterprises for repairs, but such facility was not available with them. Thereafter, the T.V. was given for repairs to Srinivasa Sales Corporation at Mysore. The stabilizer was also given for the repairs. As per bill prepared by Srinivasa Sales Corporation, the T.V. and the stabilizer were damaged due to high voltage supplied by the Opposite Party. The Complainant has incurred the following expenses.<br /> (a) Repair of the T.V. -- Rs.1,875/-<br /> (b) Replacement of the Stabilizer -- Rs. 900/-<br /> (c) Transportation -- Rs. 100/-<br /> Total -- Rs.2,875/-<br /> <br /> 3. It is further contended that the Complainant has to hire another T.V. for the purpose of entertainment and she has incurred expenses of Rs.3,500/-. On the ground of deficiency in service Complainant has claimed damages of Rs.5,000/-.<br /> <br /> 4. Notice was duly served to the Opposite Party who appeared and seriously contested the Complainant.<br /> <br /> 5. It is the case of the Opposite Party that the Complaint is not maintainable in law. The Complainant has not furnished the R.R number of her installation. Hence, the Complainant is not a “Consumer”, and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint. No Complaint was lodged in the service station regarding the voltage fluctuation or supply of high voltage on 10.08.2005 at 3.15 p.m. The alleged damage might have taken place due to defect in the internal wiring. The Complainant has not installed the M.C.B. or E.L.C.B. in the said premises. The alleged damage might have also taken place due to earth leakage. The Complainant has not produced any certificate from the competent authority to show the damage was caused due to high voltage. No written Complaint was lodged with the Opposite Party. Hence, all other contentions in the Complaint are denied in toto and prayed for dismissing the Complaint with cost. <br /> <br /> 6. The Complainant was examined as CW-1, and the Mechanic Indresh was examined as CW-2. The Complainant has produced the bills given by Srinivasa Sales Corporation, copy of the legal notice and postal acknowledgement. The Opposite Party was examined as RW-1 and produced 3 documents. Heard both sides.<br /> <br /> 7. Points for our consideration are as under:-<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the Complainant is a “Consumer” and this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint?<br /> 2. Whether the Complainant has proved that there was supply of high voltage on 10.08.2005 at about 3.15 p.m.?<br /> 3. Whether the Complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?<br /> 4. What Order?<br /> <br /> 8. Our findings are as under:-<br /> <br /> 1. Points No.1 to 3 : Negative.<br /> 2. Point No.4 : As per final Order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 9. POINT NO.1:- A Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 can be filed by a Complainant on the ground of deficiency in service. The word “Complainant” is a defined under section 2(1)(d) of the said Act which means a “Consumer”. The word “Consumer” is defined under section 2(1)(d) of the said Act, and in the context of service it is clearly mentioned that the Complainant should be a hirer of service for a consideration.<br /> <br /> 10. When this Complaint was filed on 21.12.2005, the Complainant has neither mentioned the R.R. number of the installation, nor mentioned the details to prove that she was a “Consumer”. After objection was raised by the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed a Memo on 17.01.2006 stating that R.R.No. is 64907.<br /> <br /> 11. The Opposite Parties have produced the original sketch map, application seeking supply of Electricity and the agreement executed by one Basavarajaiah dated 08.08.1983. The Complainant has admitted during the Cross-examination that the installation mentioned above is standing in the name of Basavarajaiah, but further states that such person is her uncle. In simple words, the Complainant is not a “Consumer”. The R.R.No.64907 is not standing in the name of the Complainant. The Complainant has not filed this Complaint claiming herself as a “Beneficiary”. Even assuming for arguments sake that the said Basavarajaiah is uncle of the Complainant, it was necessary to implead him as a party to this Complaint, or obtain his consent stating that the Complainant is a beneficiary under him. In view of the above facts, on technical grounds the Complainant cannot be treated as a “Consumer” as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So point no.1 is answered in negative.<br /> <br /> 12. POINTS NO.2 & 3:- It is admitted by CW-1 during Cross-examination that she has not given any written Complaint on the date of incident i.e., 10.08.2005 at 3.15 p.m. She further states that the information was given on phone. But, there is no record. It is also seen from the documents, which are produced by the Complainant that the T.V. was given for repairs to Srinivasa Sales Corporation on 18.08.2005 (Work Order No.571). It is further seen that she purchased one “V-guard” stabilizer for an amount of Rs.900/- on 15.09.2005. It is also seen that the T.V. was repaired and Complainant has paid an amount of Rs.1,900/- on 28.10.2005 under Invoice No.542. The Opposite Parties were not aware of all these facts, till a legal notice was sent on 22.11.2005, which was duly served on 23.11.2005.<br /> <br /> 13. In other words the Opposite Party got the knowledge of the incident dated 10.08.2005 only on 23.11.2005 i.e., nearly after a period of 3½ months. By this time, the T.V. was got repaired by the Complainant, and new stabilizer was purchased. It is stated by RW-1 that for such reason of delay they have not initiated any enquiry or investigation in the matter.<br /> <br /> 14. Merely because the Complainant got her T.V. repaired from Srinivasa Sales Corporation, no presumption can be drawn that the T.V. was damaged due to supply of high voltage. If such presumption is drawn, the Opposite Party will be liable to pay damages to almost all “Consumers” whenever some home appliances are damaged. The burden is on the Complainant to prove that such damage was caused due to supply of high voltage.<br /> <br /> 15. The Opposite Party has produced the sketch map given by the Electrical Contractor and signed by Basavarajaiah to show that supply was secured for the said house only for 6 lighting points. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Party submitted that total connect load was only 240 watts, and there was no provision for any plug, or connection for the T.V. This contention appears to be technically correct. Even assuring that the T.V. was connected to such installation, we can allow this Complaint only if there is positive proof of supply of high voltage.<br /> <br /> 16. CW-2 Indresh is the Technician working under Srinivasa Sales Corporation. He admits during Cross-examination that he has not conducted any spot inspection, the T.V. was brought to the shop and his owner gave the estimate. He further states that there is inbuilt stabilizer in the T.V. He further states there was external stabilizer used by the Complainant. During further Cross-examination he states that he is only an Electronic Engineer, and he does not know about the supply of electricity. He has not issued any certificate stating that the damage was caused to the T.V. and stabilizer due to supply of high voltage.<br /> <br /> 17. In view of the evidence of CW-2, we cannot come to conclusion that the damage was caused to the T.V. and stabilizer due to high voltage.<br /> <br /> 18. In reality, if the damage was caused due to high voltage, the Complainant would have immediately lodged a written Complaint with the Opposite Party. She would have given the Opposite Party an opportunity to examine the damaged T.V. and the installation, immediately on 10.08.2005. Atleast this Complaint should have been filed immediately by producing the damaged T.V. and stabilizer which could have been subjected for examination `by some expert. As Complainant has failed to do so, and lately approached the Forum, after getting the T.V. repaired, we cannot come to conclusion that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence, point nos.2 & 3 are answered in negative and, we proceed to pass the following Order. <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear the costs.<br /> 2. Give a free copy of this Order to both parties according to Rules.<br />