BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 118/2001 Filed on 13.03.2001 Dated : 15.01.2009 Complainant: M. Mohammed Ali, Sha's House, Karichara, Pallippuram P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. (By adv. A. Abdul Kharim) Opposite parties: Kerala State Electricity Board represented by its Secretary, Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom P.O, Thiruvananthapuram -4. Assistant Executive Engineer, Major Section, Kaniyapuram, Thiruvananthapuram. Assistant Engineer, Major Section, Kaniyapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. Shaji Chellappan) This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 21.07.2003, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 15.12.2008, the Forum on 15.01.2009 delivered the following: ORDER SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant is a consumer of electricity under the opposite parties having consumer No. 543 KPM. It is a single phase domestic connection. Complainant regularly remits electricity bills without any default. The electric meter in respect of the connection was fitted in a large room situated in the northern side of the house building. Opposite parties installed the meter, the incoming connector, and weather proof wire towards the meter. The wire in the other portion of the building was undertaken by the complainant through a licensed electrician approved by the KSEB. On 15.01.2001 at about 4 p.m there was a smoke and huge fire was seen in the said room where the electric meter is installed. Later it was noticed that the smoke and fire broke out from the joint where the incoming connecting lead which connected with the meter. The entire articles and furniture including coats, costly saris, all articles kept in the showcase were damaged in the fire apart from causing damage to window, door, fan, regulator, tube light fittings, switch board, toys, books, bed and pillow etc. Cracks were also occurred in the roof as well as in the walls of the room. An estimate loss of Rs. 222000/- was sustained by the complainant. The matter was informed to the 3rd opposite party who came and prepared the site mahazar on the very same date. The electricity was restored in other rooms of the house by the opposite parties by saying that the service is free because of the short circuit occurred to the incoming connector and electric meter. Opposite parties demanded an amount of Rs. 944/- for repair of the meter. The said demand is an after thought to cover the negligence and to deny the due compensation to the complainant. The mahazar prepared by the Assistant Engineer is an authoritative and authenticated document. It is evident from the mahazar report that the fire started from weather proof power supply cable from the nearby electrical pole to the meter. The complainant is exposed to danger due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite party. Hence this complaint claiming Rs. 2,22,000/- as compensation. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed version contending that the cause of action involves various questions like legal, factual and technical. For adjudicating the matter elaborate evidence taking such as detailed examination of witnesses and marking a number of documents are required. The circumstances of this case warrant a detailed procedure not contemplated in the Consumer Protection Act. Electric connection to the complainant was given 20 years back by the KSEB under the consumer No. 543. the main switch and internal wiring of the premises were carried out by the complainant and periodical inspection and maintenance of the internal wiring of the premises are the responsibility of the complainant. The relevant clause 23(a) of the Conditions of Supply of Electrical Energy reads as under: “The Board shall provide its own fuse units/cut outs for low tension consumer and circuit breakers or H.T fuses for high tensions consumers and these shall remain the property of the Board and must on no account be operated, handled or removed by anyone who is not in the employee of the Board. Likewise the seals, name plates and distinguishing numbers of marks of the Board affixed on the said property shall not be interfered with or any account broken or removed or erased except by employees of the Board duly authorized for the purpose. The point of commencement of supply of energy to a consumer shall be deemed to be the point at the outgoing terminals of the cut-outs inserted by the Board. A common control for supplier and consumer under the control of the Board shall also be permitted for H.T Consumers”. The Board is not responsible for the accidents caused due to the defects short circuit in the internal electrical installation of the consumers. The complainant has no claim that he has repaired the installation. Opposite parties had conducted periodical inspection regarding the soundness of their installation. The last inspection was conducted on 05.01.2001 by the centre duty overseer and reading was noted as 1010. No defect was noticed at this time to the terminal connection(outgoing wire) and working of the meter. Complainant has filed this complaint with ulterior motive to put the blame on the opposite parties and to extract the public money at their disposal. The then Assistant Executive Engineer inspected the premises and found that the fire broke out from the very old circuit wiring of the room due to installation failure and spread over to the metering equipments including the meter except weather proof wire connected to the incoming terminal of the meter. The contentions raised against the demand for payment of Rs. 944/- are not correct. Due to the accident opposite parties have sustained a loss of Rs. 944/-. Complainant was directed to repair the circuit wiring of the premises. Complainant has complied with the above directions and also remitted an amount of Rs. 100/- towards additional cash deposit and the supply was restored on 01.02.2001. The loss sustained by the complainant is due to the outburst of smoke and fire originated from the very old circuit wiring and main switch board inside the room which was installed by the complainant years back and not from the energy meter. Hence opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The points that arise for consideration are:- Whether there has been negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties? Reliefs and costs.
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P4. In rebuttal, 2nd opposite party has filed counter affidavit as DW1 and marked Ext. D1. 2nd opposite party has been cross examined by the complainant. 3rd opposite party has been examined as DW2 and cross examined by the complainant. Points (i) & (ii):- Admittedly, complainant is a consumer of electricity under the opposite parties having consumer No. 543 KPM. It has been the case of the complainant that the electric meter, in respect of the connection was fitted in a large room situated in the northern side of the house building, that on 15.01.2001, at about 4 p.m there was smoke and huge fire was seen in the said room where the electric meter is installed, that the said smoke and huge fire was broken out from the joint where the incoming connector connecting lead (weather proof cable) which connected with the meter and that the entire articles and furniture including coats, costly saris, all articles kept in the showcase in the said room were damaged in the fire apart from causing damage to the windows, door, fan, regulation, tube light, fittings, switch board, toys books, bed and pillow etc. which would estimate a loss of Rs. 2,22,000/- to the complainant. It has also been the case of the complainant that the matter was informed to the 3rd opposite party who came and prepared a site mahazar on the very same date, that the electricity was restored in the other rooms of the house by the opposite parties by saying that the said service is free because of the short circuit occurred to the incoming connector and electric meter. It has been rebutted by opposite parties by submitting that complainant had taken connection 20 years back,that the said fire was broken out from the very old circuit wiring of the room due to installation failure and spread over to the metering equipment including the meter except weather proof wire connected to incoming terminal of the meter, that the circuit wiring and main switch board inside the room were installed by the complainant and that opposite parties are in no way responsible for the accident which was caused solely due to the defects in the complainant's internal installation. Ext. P3 is the copy of site mahazar prepared at 4.30 p.m on 15.01.2001 by the 3rd opposite party Assistant Engineer. It is stated in Ext. P1 site mahazar that the incoming connector of the single phase energy meter and weather proof wire leading to the connector were burnt and turned to carbon due to sparking caused by short circuit, and the connector case of the meter was burnt and caused hole, and the outgoing side also burnt and turned to carbon. The meter, meter board and fuse were burnt and covered by smoke. The electric wire and insulation inside room were burnt. The articles like table, cot, dresses stand, chairs (two), water filter, showcase, window, door, fan regulator, tube light fittings, switch board, fan, toys, books, bed, pillow, bed sheet etc. were seen burnt. Ext. D1 is the site mahazar prepared at 5 p.m on 15.01.2001 prepared by the 2nd opposite party, Assistant Executive Engineer. As per Ext. D1, the DP distribution board and fuse units installed on the eastern wall of the room where the single phase meter is installed were completely burnt and melted due to short circuit and the resultant fire from the household appliances caused meter installed by KSE Board to be burnt. It is further stated in Ext. D1 that the W/P wire taken from the KC 67 number post to connect the meter installed by the KSEB is not seen damaged by the fire. In his examination, 2nd opposite party Assistant Executive Engineer has deposed that 'in Ext. P3 site mahazar, since the cause of fire was not mentioned by the 3rd opposite party, he was forced to inspect the said premises to find out the real cause of the accident. DW1 further deposed that it was due to the circuit in the internal wiring insulation, the fire broke out. In his cross examination DW1 deposed that the cable was burnt due to the fire and not due to short circuit. DW1 further deposed that the weather proof service wire was not damaged and using the same weather proof wire reconnection was effected. Prior to the said incident, the meter reader recorded meter reading on 05.01.2001 and meter reading equipment was having no defects. Submission urged by the opposite party is that due to the accident the KSEB has sustained a loss of Rs. 944/- and a demand was raised accordingly-(that is cost of meter Rs. 755+Rs. 182 towards labour charges for installation of the new meter+Rs. 5 as testing fee+Rs. 2/- as application fee), that the complainant was directed to repair the circuit wiring of the premises by engaging a licensed wiring contractor and to produce a test certificate as per service connection agreements, so as to enable opposite parties to restore supply, and the same was complied by the complainant and the supply was restored. Though 2nd opposite party has been cross examined, nothing was brought out by the complainant to controvert the Ext. D1 site mahazar, nor complainant sought independent technical opinion to destabilize the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer. It should be mentioned that when the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer are available, the report of the former is to be given top priority since the former is the higher authority. There is no material on record to challenge Ext. D1 or deposition of DW1. No efforts were made by the complainant to prove otherwise. The initial onus of establishing the case would rest on the complainant. Complainant failed to establish his case. Hence we find no deficiency on the part of opposite parties. Complaint has no merit at all which deserves to be dismissed. In the result, complaint is dismissed. Both the parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th January 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, President.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 118/2001 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - Nil PW2 - Sabu II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Bill No. 44 dated 05.01.2001 of Con. No. 543. P2 - Copy of letter issued by KSEB, Major Sec., Kaniyapuram. P3 - Copy of site mahazar dated 15.01.2001. P4 - Copy of reply notice dated 05.02.2001.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : DW1 - G. Mani Rajan DW2 - E. Mohammed Shereef. IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL
PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
