KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL 143/2007 JUDGMENT DATED: 1.1.2010 Appeal filed against the order passed by CDRF, Thrissur in OP 777/03 PRESENT JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT 1. Assistant Executive Engineer, : APPELLANTS Electrical Major Section, Viyyur, Thrissur. 2. Kerala State Electricity Board, Rep. by its Secretary, Pattom, Trivandrum. (By Adv.S.Balachandran) vs. 1. Pullarkkattil Sivadasan, : RESPONDENTS S/o Pullarkkattil Velayudhan, Padukkad, P.O., Viyyur. 2. Radhakrishnan.N., R.K.Villa, P.O.Kolazhy. 3. Mohanan, S/o Payyappadan Vasu, Padukkad.P.O., Viyyur. 4. Mohanan, S/o Naduvil Purakkal Kochunny, Padukkad, P.O., Viyyur. 5. Mani Sundaran, Manjaparambil House, Poovani Centre.P.O.Kolazhy. 6. Dileep, T.S.Thandassery House, P.O.Kolazhy., Thrissur. 7. Omana.K.V., W/o K.P.Ramakarishna Karimthatayil house, Kailas Nagar, P.O.Kolazhy. 8. N.S.Ramachandran, Sreeraj, Kailas Nagar.P.O.,Kolazhy. 9. Sajith C. S/o M.Sathyapalan, Kailas Nagar, P.O.Kolazhy. JUDGMENT JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT The Appellant is the opposite party/KSEB in OP.777/03 in the file of CDRF, Thrissur. The appellants are under orders to pay different amounts to the 9 complainants as specified in the order and also Rs.1000/- each as compensation and to all the complainants together a sum of Rs.2500/- as cost. 2. It is the case of the complainants that the 9 complainants with different consumer Nos. had sustained loss on account of damage to the electrical household equipments on account of over voltage on 30.6.03. Each of the complainants have claimed different amounts depending on the value of the damaged electrical equipments like TV, Fridge, Mixi, Fan etc. 3. Opposite parties/appellants have contended that the over voltage that happened was not on account of any deficiency in service on their part. It is also contended that the damage was due to lightening or natural calamities. On the particular day on application of one K.G.Chandran, one of the consumers, the electrical supply was cut off from 10 AM including overhead LT line and transformer. It is also contended that the plants near about are seen blackish due to fire. The same can be due to lightening and thunder. If voltage stabilizers were used the equipments would not have damaged. If there was appropriate fuse service connection the connection would have been cut off. The consumers ought to have switched off the main switch during lightening and thunder. As per Section 27 of the Conditions of Supply, the Board is not liable to compensate the damage is due to natural calamities. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of Exts.P1 series 16 in Nos. and C1. 5. The Forum relying on the report of the Commissioner who is a Lecturer in Electrical Engineering has held that the high voltage happened on account of the fact that the electricity 110 KV line touched the low tension line lying below the HT line. I find that Commissioner has also noted that it required distance of 6.3 mts from the ground for the 110 KV line has to be maintained. It was not so done I find that no objection has been filed on the Commission report. In the absence of any evidence on the part of the opposite parties and in the light of the report of the commissioner over which no objection has been filed, I find that there is no patent illegality in the order of the Forum below. In the result the appeal is dismissed. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT ps | 
