FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Minakshi Chakraborty, Presiding Member.
Brief facts of the case of complainant:
This case has been filed U/s.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the electric line of his house was repaired by the W.B.S.E.D.C.L on 13.07.2020 but after repairment of the line when the complainant made the switch on his television, fan and five bulbs were damaged by the double phase electric line. He submitted complaint report which has not been taken into consideration and has given rise to the instant proceeding praying for reliefs on different grounds.
Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties to pay sum of Rs. 15,000/- for loss and injury and to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for inconvenience to him as well as to his family and to pay a sum of Rs. 2000/- for litigation cost.
Facts narrated by the Ops:
The opposite party No. 1 who is representing all the OPs contests the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations leveled against them. The written version states that the complainant lodged two complaints vide (i) Docket no. 31951306 regarding “No Power issue” and another complaint vide docket no. 31951329 on 13.7.2020 before this concern authority with an interval of only three minutes and on receiving the above call as per dockets on the self-same day the technical personnel with mobile van attended the call and submitted a report stating that due to short circuit of cable inside SMC box the connection may have turned to double phase and it was also restored back to its normal situation and it is reported that AB cable conversion work was done by M/s. KEI Industries Ltd. at the adjacent areas under HDVS project and after charging of AB cable this incident may have happened. But it cannot be said that due to the said work the complainant’s alleged items i.e fan, T.V. and five lights have been damaged. As because the said apartment of the complainant is a flat type building and several service connections were provided to the said building through the same SMC distribution box but no other service connection was affected due to the above reason the service meter of the complainant was also not affected and it was found that the complainant has been enjoying electricity without installing any protective equipment from his side. Due to cause of occurrence of High voltage service cable may have damaged and the same conversion work of the adjacent area of the said apartment was done on 13.7.2020 by M/s. KEI Industries Ltd. and the concerned agency M/s. E. Saha enterprise electrical Co. Ltd. was issued a letter for submitting a report on this issue vide memo no. BDL/CGIT-10 dt. 14.7.2020 in respect complaint of complainant technical lineman visited the premises and submitted one report on 15.7.2020 where it was stated that KEI personnel already replaced the service cable and connection bearing consumer ID 163180963 of the complainant was alive and the DY. Project Manager M/S. KEI Industries Ltd. submitted one detailed report dt. 6.8.2020 about the damaging and replacement of cable. The instant case was called for the hearing on 9.9.2020 at the CGRO and as one draft order vide memo no. CD/CRM/GRO/112 dt. 16.9.2020 was issued by the CGRO & CE, CRM call and it was dismissed for the reason of high voltage where by consequential damage of electrical equipments of the claimant could not be confirmed and date of final hearing was fixed on 30.9.2020 and on the final hearing this complainant could neither produce any further document supporting his complaint nor stated any new facts to that effect and hence prays for dismissal of the instant case.
Evidence:
The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite party no. 1.Complainant did not filed any written notes of argument.
The answering opposite party no. 1 filed a petition on 22.4.2021 to treat his W/V as his evidence on affidavit.
Argument advanced on behalf of the complainant and the opposite parties heard at length.
From the discussion stated hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.
Issues/points for consideration:
On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is a consumer?
- Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Issue number 1:
In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Issue number 2:
Both the complainant and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly. Considering the claim amount of complainant as per prayer of the petition of complainant it appears that those do not exceed Rs. 50,00,000/- which amount is considered as the pecuniary power vested with the District Commission by virtue of provisions of Consumer Protection Act 2019,hence, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the present case.
Issue nos.3& 4 :
Both the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
Complainant appears to have lodged two complaints vide docket no. 31951306 & 31951329 on 13.07.2020 wherefrom it appears that due to wrong connection in service cable due to high voltage the electrical appliances of the complainant were damaged.
The Ops in their written objection dated 22.02.2021 have admitted about attending the call of the petitioner stating that due to short circuit of cable inside SMC Box the connection may have turned to double phase and have admitted that the same was restored back to its normal situation. Much has been stated therein about AB Cable conversion work was done by M/S KEI Industries Ltd. at the adjacent areas under HDBS Project and after charging of AB Cable this incident may have taken place. It has denied that due to the said work the petitioner’s alleged items i.e the fan, T.V and bulbs were damaged. The Ops have also mentioned,” due to cause of occurrence of high voltage service cable may have damaged “. The Ops have also admitted,” the same conversion work of the adjacent area of LALITA APPARTMENT was done on 13.07.20 by M/S KEI Industries Ltd.
The Ops have filed one letter (annexure-3) which appears to have been issued to M/S B.Saha Enterprise Elect wherefrom it appears that a report was called for regarding complaint of the petitioner and annexure-4 reveals that A.E and Station Manager submitted a report to Project Manager relating to complaint of the petitioner which clearly indicates that the service cable of the present petitioner was damaged due to conversion work and ‘due to wrong connection in service cable from poll side ‘ and as a result of which “ some electrical appliances of the said consumer have been damaged due to high voltage on 13.07.2020
Annexure-F and other letters dated 10.05.2020 , 23,09,2020 and 16.09.2020 do not appear to be of any use by the Ops in any way in the instant proceeding.
In view of discussion stated hereinabove this commission is of considered opinion that for no fault of his own such damaged has been caused and as such the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs for causing damage of his electrical appliances and for harassment and litigation cost as well.
Both the issues are thus disposed of.
Hence,
ordered
that the complaint case no. 54 of 2020 be and the same is decreed in part on contest.
The petitioner do get Rs. 10000/ for damage for his electrical appliances and Rs. 5000/ towards harassment as well as Rs. 2000/ for litigation cost.
The aforesaid quantum of money to be paid by the Ops within 45 days from date failing which the complainant is at liberty to take recourse to law.
The opposite parties are also directed to pay and/ or deposit Rs. 5000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of D.C.D.R.C., Hooghly which is to be utilized for the purpose of poor litigant public.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website
