DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 20th day of April, 2023
Present : Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt. Vidya A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member Date of Filing: 3/11/2020
CC/139/2020
S.Jayaprakash,
S/o.Subramanian,
Vaniyathara House,
Pazhampalakkode,
Palakkad – 678 544 - Complainant
(By Adv. Rajesh M. Menon)
Vs
- Asst. Executive Engineer,
Electrical Sub Division,
Alathur.
- Asst.Engineer,
K.S.E.B.Office,Padur Section,
Kazhani Chungam, Kavassery. - Opposite parties
(O.P.s by Adv. Remika.C)
O R D E R
By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President
- Brief pleadings of the complainant are that on 5/10/2020 at about 1 AM there was a power surge from a transformer and around 40 houses suffered losses. The electrical appliances in premises of the complainant also suffered destruction. Complainant’s wife suffered burns. Even though the complainant approached the opposite parties and sought for damages they failed to respect his claim. Hence this complainant is filed seeking damages for the alleged losses sustained by the complainant.
- Opposite party No.1 filed version admitting the power surge. But they pleaded that the complainant’s premises did not have mandatory electrical installation like Earth Leakage Circuit Breaker (ELCB). It is because of the absence of this protective installation that the complainant suffered losses. Further the losses suffered by the complainant are exaggerated. The only damage caused in the premise of the complaint is the burning of fridge and stabilizer due to malfunctioning of the stabilizer. They sought for dismissal of the complaint.
- The following issues arise for consideration:
1. Whether the premises of the complainant had mandatory protective mechanisms like ELCB?
2. Whether there is any other deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to any reliefs sought for?
4. Any other Reliefs?
4. (i) Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Exts. A1 to A3. Marking of Exhibits A3 is objected on the ground that it is an estimate and can be marked only through the person who issued.
Since Ext.A3 is an estimate the same cannot be equated as being at par with an invoice. Hence it has no evidentiary value to prove the cost of electrical appliances. Further Ext.A3 predates the power surge by nearly 1 year. Hence, Ext.A3 cannot be relied on to come to any conclusion regarding the matters it seeks to prove. Hence Ext. A3 will not be relied upon.
(ii) O.P. filed proof affidavit and Exts. B1 & B2 were marked.
Issue No.1
5. It is the case of the complainant that there was a power surge and electrical appliances were gutted and person of his family sustained burns. The opposite party stoutly refuted the contentions with regard to losses sustained to appliances and the burns suffered. As per the opposite party the complainant had not fitted mandatory protective applications like the ELCB. The ELCB would have disconnected the connection in the event of surge and protected the appliances of in the premises of the complainant. Further they submitted that the only appliance that sustained losses was a fridge owing to defective stabilizer.
6. In order to substantiate his case the complainant marked Exts.A1 to A3. Ext.A3 is worthless and will not assist this Commission in any manner for the reasons stated supra. Ext. A1 are paper cuttings of news items which appeared in the vernacular newspapers relating to the power surge and resultant losses. Since news items cannot be taken as evidence to prove the extent or cause of losses, we refrain from relying on Ext.A1. Ext.A2 is a set of 8 photographs. These photographs will not assist this Commission to a conclusion as regard the losses sustained by the complainant. Thus we are constrained to hold that the complainant has failed to prove the extent of losses suffered by him.
7. Ext.B1 is a site mahazar prepared by the authorized officials of the opposite parties in their line of duty. Ext.B1 was marked without any objection. Had the complainant any objections regarding the contents of Ext.B1 he could have very well cross examined the persons who prepared Ext.B1. Hence, we hold the contents of Ext.B1 to be proved and that the contents therein to be reasonably and fairly reflective of the cause, nature and extent of losses.
8. Resultantly, we hold that
(1) The complainant has failed to install mandatory protective applications like ELCB;
(2) Losses sustained is due to absence of ELCB; and
(3) The complainant has failed to prove the extent of losses suffered by him.
Issue Nos. 2, 3 & 4
9. Apropos the findings and conclusions above, we hold that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties and that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.
10. In the fact and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
With the above observation, this complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in open court on this the 20th day of April, 2023.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/- Krishnankutty N.K.
Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant :
Ext.A1 – Copy of newspaper of Mathrubhumi Paper dated 6/10/2020
Ext.A2 – Set of 8 photographs
Ext.A3 – Original estimate dated 16/10/2019
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:
Ext.B1 – Original site inspection report dated 5/10/20
Ext.B2 – Carbon copy of communication bearing No.DB8/2020-21/ESDALR
Court Exhibit: Nil
Third party documents: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court Witness: Nil
NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
