Kerala

Idukki

CC/41/2017

Paul - Complainant(s)

Versus

SecretaryKSEB Vyduthi Bhavan - Opp.Party(s)

30 Oct 2020

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 7.3.2017

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IDUKKI

Dated this the 30^th day of October, 2020

Present :

SMT. ASAMOL P. PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

SRI. AMPADY K.S. MEMBER

CC NO.41/2017

Between

Complainant : Paul, S/o. Poulose,

Kuthanappillil House,

Mulakuvalli P.O., Idukki.

(By Adv: Sibi Thomas)

 

And

Opposite Parties : 1 . The Secretary,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Vydyuthi Bhavan,

Pattam, Thiruvananthapuram.

2. The Assistant Engineer,

Kerala State Electricity Board,

Electrical Section, Painavu,

Idukki Colony P.O., Idukki.

(By Adv: Lissy M.M.)

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

 

 

Allegations of the complainant are as follows :

 

Complainant was conducting a printing press named "Hillson printers" at Thadiyampadu town. It was for earning his livelihood and it was started under SSI scheme. He and his son only was working in the press. He was conducting the press in the rented building owned by his family. 2 printing machines, 1 cutting machine, 1 perforating machine, 4 stapling machines, 3 computers, 3 printers, one inverter along with connected equipments were installed in the press. Above machineries have an approximate value of about Rs.19 lakhs. Besides the above items, table, chair, fibre chairs, office chair, 2 stands made up of woodden and iron materials were also in the press. Moreover, papers which were printed as well as plain printing papers were also lost totally due to fire

(cont....2)

- 2 -

 

occured. It occurred on 4.3.2015. Press was closed at about 12.30 hours in the night after disconnecting the switches. At about 3.30 am, his son Nijo informed over phone that fire occurred in the press. When he reached the place, fire force personnel were doing the work of controlling flame. When he entered in the press, he found that press was lost totally. Above incidence was happened by the short circuit due to use of very old and unsafe service wire used by the opposite party from the post to meter. Service wire used by opposite party was more than 30 years old. He requested several times to the concerned lineman about the necessity of changing the wire. Above loss happened due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party.

 

For the above reasons, he prayed for the following reliefs.

 

a) Rs.9 lakhs towards the loss occurred due to deficiency in service of the opposite party may be recovered from the opposite parties.

b) Compensation of Rs.1 lakh may be recovered from the opposite parties for his mental agony and loss of employment.

c) Other appropriate relief found to be allowable my also be allowed.

 

Opposite parties filed written version in the following lines.

1. Complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. He is not a consumer and there was no denial of consumer rights from the opposite parties. Hence the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.

2. If the complainant's institution was registered under SSI scheme, he has to produce the document before the 2^nd opposite party for enjoying the benefit of reduced tariff rate under LT 4A for industrial purpose rather than paying electricity bills under a high tariff rate under LT 7A for commercial purpose.

 

Since the complainant is using electrical energy for commercial purpose and not for earning livelihood but for earning profits, the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act and on this ground alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. The rest of the averments in the 1^st paragraph is not known to the opposite parties and hence denied. (cont....3)

- 3 -

 

The 1^st sentence of the 2^nd paragraph is not known to the opposite party. The rest of the averments in para 2 is not fully correct and hence denied. According to the details kept in the 2^nd opposite pary's office, the complainant's electric connection at the time of the fire accident was registered in the name of Sri.P. Poulose, Kuthanappillil, Thadiyampadu bearing consumer No.586 under LT 7A tariff with a connected load of 1150 watts. The copy of accident intimation form is produced as Ext.R1. The ownership of the connection was changed in the name of Sri. Sibi K. Paul, Kuthanappillil, Thadiyampadu. The relevant pages of ownership change register and consumer profile is produced as Ext.R2. As per the complaint, the complainant connected more equipments than that sanctioned by the opposite party. The rest of the averments are not known to the opposite party.

 

The 1^st sentence of the 3^rd paragraph is correct. Rest of the averments in paragraph is not known to the opposite party.

 

The averments under para 4 is not fully correct and hence denied. As per regulation 18 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, 2014, the duty of the opposite party is to install Meter and associated equipments to provide electric supply to the point of supply of the consumer's premises after inspecting the system of protection in the premises of the consumers and satisfy itself before the commencement of supply, that the system of protection confirms to the provisions of the central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating the safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010. Moreover, as per Section 13(3) of the Central Electricity Authority (measures relating to safety and electric supply) Regulation 2010, the consumer shall take precautions for the safe custody of the equipment in his premises belonging to the supplier. The consumer shall also ensure that the installation under his control is maintained in a safe condition. Hence, it is the responsibility of the consumer to maintain in safe condition the installations and apparatuses connected to his premise after the point of supply. As per the records available at the opposite party, no alteration work such as rewiring was done to the installation in the consumer's premises. The copy of consumer profile is produced as Ext.R3. The last sentence of the 5^th paragraph is not correct and hence denied.

(cont....4)

- 4 -

The complainant never filed any complaint to the office of the 2^nd opposite party or his workmen to change the service wire connected to his premises as alleged by the complainant. As per the report of the Electrical Inspector the accident was occurred not due to electricity. The copy of the report is produced as Ext.R3(a).

 

As per the site mahazar prepared by the opposite party on 4.3.2015, the accident was occurred due to the short circuit in the installation of the consumer and not from the service wire of the opposite party as the portion of the service wire connected to the premises was in good condition. The copy of the site mahazar is attached as Ext.R4. The Electrical Inspector is the appropriate authority authorised for inspecting and submitting report to the government in case of any electrical accident. Hence the Electrical Inspector, Moolamattom is a necessary party in the above number case. The report of Electrical Inspector also reveals that these opposite parties are not liable for the accident. The complainant never filed any request for receiving accident claim before the opposite party in connection with the fire accident as he was well aware that the accident was occurred due to lack of proper maitenance of the installation in his part.

 

There is no deficiency in service on the part of these opposite parties so the complainant is not entitled to any relief's as sought for in the complaint. There is no bonafide cause of action for the complainant to file this complaint. The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint because the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.

 

None of the reliefs claimed in the complaint are allowable. These opposite parties are not liable for the cost and compensation of the complainant and it is humbly prayed that this petition may be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties.

 

Complainant and opposite parties filed proof affidavit. Complainant produced following 2 documents. 1. Copy of FIR 67/2015 of Idukki Police Station. 2. Copy of fire occurance report No.20/2015 dated 4.3.2015 of Station Officer, Fire and Rescue Station, Idukki.

 

(cont....5)

- 5 -

Complainant and 3 other witnesses were examined on the side of complainant as PW1 to PW4. Above 2 documents were marked as Exts.P1 and P2. PW1 is the complainant. PW2 is HG, Fire and Rescue Station, Idukki. PW3 is Fireman, Fire and Rescue Station, Idukki. PW4 is Station Officer, Fire and Rescue Station, Idukki who had attended the site for the rescue operation.

 

Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd., Vazhathope is examined as DW1 and marked following documents as Ext.R1 to R5. (1) Ext.R1 - copy of 'form A' for reporting electrical accidents involving human beings. (2) Ext.R2 - copy of ownership change register showing change of ownership from the name of Poulose. P, Kuthanappillil to Sibi K. Paul, Kuthanappillil on 13.7.2015. (3) Ext.R3 - copy of consumer profile of 586 as on 3.5.2017. (4) Ext.R4 - copy of electrical accident enquiry report No.B2-421/2015/EII dated 23.4.2015 of Assistant Electrical Inspector, Moolamattom. (5) Ext.R5 - copy of site Mahazar dated 4.3.2015 prepared by Assistant Engineer, KSEB, Painavu.

 

Heard both sides.

 

We have considered the rival contentions of both parties. On a perusal of the contentions, law, facts and circumstances of the case, following points arise for consideration:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?

2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to claim loss of Rs.9 lakhs from the opposite parties ?

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.1 lakh from the opposite parties and other reliefs as prayed for ?

 

POINT No.1: Contention of opposite parties is that complainant is using electrical energy for commercial purpose and not for earning livelihood and therefore he is not a consumer is not sustainable in the eye of law. Here the electric connection is in the name of his father. As per definition of consumer, user of goods when such use is made with the approval of the first person is also a consumer subject to the condition that

(cont....6)

- 6 -

it is not for re-sale or for commercial purpose. Besides, as per explanation to the same definition, goods and services bought or availed is exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment is not a commercial purpose. Here, from the averments of the complainant and since the opposite parties have not denied the running of printing press by complainant, it is seen that he is the actual user of the services of the opposite parties. Complainant was using the electricity for running the press and there is no resale or transfer of the services as such. As per tariff fixed by Kerala Electricity Regulatory Commission, printing press comes under industrial purpose and included in LT IV(A). It need not be SSI unit. Change of ownership as per Ext.R2 is after the date of the incident. In these circumstances, we find that complainant is a 'consumer' as defined in the Act. Hence we overrule the contention of the opposite parties.

 

POINT NO.2:- It is an admitted fact that fire occurred in the printing press conducted by complainant and loss of machinery and other items as seen from Exts.P1, P2, R1, R4 and R5. The question to be decided is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. It is stated in Ext.R5 that mechanical meter was destroyed due to fire and was laying in the floor. Besides service wire was destroyed by fire at the point of connecting the same to the meter and separated into 2 pieces. It is quite astonishing to note the findings of Assistant Electrical Inspector in Ext.R4. She stated that from the evidence available, source of fire cannot be decided and that it cannot be said that fire is occurred due to electricity. What is the purpose of such an enquiry report. A responsible officer of the Electrical Inspectorate should not prepare such a vague report. Statements said to be taken from complainant and Assistant Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. were not attached to the enquiry report. Moreover, there is contradiction in the report in column 15(5) and the findings shown in column 15(4). She was not examined as witness by opposite parties. In the above circumstances, we are unable to accept the findings of Assistant Electrical Inspector. Concerned Assistant Engineer of KSEB Ltd is also not examined. In paragraph 5 of written version, opposite parties admitted that as per Section 18 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code, it is the duty of opposite parties to instal meter and associated equipments after inspecting the system of protection in the

(cont....7)

 

• 7 -

   

premises of consumer and satisfy itself before commencement of supply. From this, it is clear that opposite parties had satisfied the protection system at the time of installation. Besides, as per S.13 (1) of Central Electricity Authority (measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010, the supplier shall ensure that all electic supply lines, wires, fittings etc belonging to him which are on a consumer's premises are in safe condition and in all respects fit for supplying electricity. Present incident shows that there was negligence on the part of opposite parties in maintaining the service wire in good condition. From Ext.R5 itself, it is seen that service wire was destroyed by fire at the point where it is connected to meter. Upto the point of meter, liability casts on the opposite parties. Since fire occurred at the above point of connection and spread to machinery and other items, it can be seen that due to the deficiency in service of opposite parties, fire was occurred. Hence we are not inclined to allow the contention of opposite parties.

 

POINT NO.3:- It is a fact that loss happened to complainant due to fire through electricity. At the same time, complainant has not cared to establish actual loss through inspection by an approved valuer. Only the station officer, fire and rescue station, Idukki has reported an approximate loss of properties. As per Ext.P2 of the station officer an approximate loss of items were shown under various heads. According to him, material loss in the press is about Rs.2.30 lakhs. It is only an approximate value. Station officer, fireman attended in the rescue operation were also examined. Since actual loss is not ascertainable from the records available, we cannot accept the claim of the complainant in full. In these circumstances, to be fair and reasonable we fix the loss at Rs.2 lakhs and direct the opposite partes to give the amount to complainant. Above point is answered as above. This amount should be paid within 30 days of receipt of this order, failing which the amount will carry simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation.

 

 

 

 

(cont....8)

• 8 -

POINT NO.4:- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to compensation and costs.

 

In the result, complaint is allowed as shown above.

 

Pronounced by this Commission on this the 30^th day of October, 2020.

Sd/-

SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

Sd/-

SMT. ASAMOL P., PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

 

APPENDIX

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1 - K.P. Paul.

PW2 - T.G. Sasi.

PW3 - Augusthy K.A.

PW4 - Jishad J.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

DW1 - Babu Paul.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1 - Copy of FIR 67/2015 of Idukki Police Station.

Ext.P2 - Copy of fire occurance report No.20/2015 dated 4.3.2015

of Station Officer, Fire and Rescue Station, Idukki.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1 - copy of 'form A' for reporting electrical accidents involving

human beings.

Ext.R2 - copy of ownership change register showing change of

ownership from the name of Poulose. P, Kuthanappillil to

Sibi K. Paul, Kuthanappillil on 13.7.2015.

Ext.R3 - copy of consumer profile of 586 as on 3.5.2017.

Ext.R4 - copy of electrical accident enquiry report

No.B2-421/2015/EII dated 23.4.2015 of Assistant Electrical

Inspector, Moolamattom.

Ext.R5 - copy of site Mahazar dated 4.3.2015 prepared by Assistant

Engineer, KSEB, Painavu.

Forwarded by Order,

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT