Karnataka

Kolar

CC/21/2017

Vidhyanikethan Educational Trust - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Asst.Executive Engineer - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.D.V.Vishwanatha Gowda

28 Feb 2018

ORDER

Date of Filing: 22/02/2017

Date of Order: 28/02/2018

BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.

 

Dated: 28^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

PRESENT

SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, B.Sc., LLB., PRESIDENT

SMT. A.C. LALITHA, BAL, LLB.,  ……  LADY MEMBER

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.21 OF 2017

Vidhyanikethan Educational Trust

Rep. by its:

Secretary Cum Principal

Sri. Raju, Secretary,

Vidhyanikethana Educational Trust,

Sidlaghatta Road, Chikkaballapur City & District.

Pine Code-562 101.                                                ….  COMPLAINANT.

(Rep. by Sri. D.V. Vishwanatha Gowda, Advocate)

 

- V/s -

1) The Assistant Executive Engineer,

BESCOM, Chikkaballapur Sub-Division,

B.B. Road, Chikkaballapur City & District.

Pin Code: 562 101.

(Rep. by Sri.Karthik.B.Y.  Advocate)

 

2) The Executive Engineer,

BESCOM, Chikkaballapur Sub-Division,

B.B. Road, Chikkaballapur City & District.

Pin Code: 562 101.

(Rep. by Sri.Karthik.B.Y.  Advocate)

 

3) The Superintendent Engineer,

BESCOM, M.B. Road,

Kolar City & District,

Pin Code: 563 101.

(Rep. by Sri.Karthik.B.Y.  Advocate)                            …. OPPOSITE PARTIES.

 

-: ORDERS:-

BY SRI. K.N. LAKSHMINARAYANA, PRESIDENT

01.   The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties and praying the Forum to direct the Ops to pay requisite compensation in the ends of justice and equity.

 

02.   The brief facts of the complaint is that:-

(a)    They are running pre-university college in the name and style of Sri. Vidhyanikethana P.U. College, Sidlaghatta Road, Chikkaballapur, and installed nine computers of LG Make, UPS Inverter and necessary wiring, 03 MCB and running the college.  On 13.10.2015 at about 2.30 PM a 11 KV electricity wire pass in the subsidiary supply line to the college, in view of the big lizard climbed the pole and come in to contact with supply line of the college and resulted in burning of electricity equipments worth of Rs.7,20,700/-.  And they incurred expenditure of Rs.7,20,700/- for reinstallation of the damaged articles as stated in Page-4 at Para(i) of the complaint.  The said incident took place due to the negligence of the Ops as they failed to guard at transformer.  The complainant approached OP No.1 complaining regarding the said fact, who advised to approach electrical inspector to take necessary action.  Then the complainant approached Deputy Electrical Inspector, Chikkaballapur, on 19.04.2015 and they did not respond properly.  On 28.10.2015 he lodged complaint before the policy and in spite of that there was no proper response by them and he approached this Forum for grant of relief as prayed in the complaint. 

 

(b)    Along with the complaint the complainant has submitted following documents:-

(i) Acknowledgement dated: 28.10.2015 issued by Sub Inspector of Police, Chickballapura Rural PS.

 

(ii) Letter dated: - Nil - issued by the complainant addressed to the Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele), Chickballapura along with list of damaged equipments.

 

 

03.   The OP Nos.1 to 3 appeared before this Forum through their advocate.  OP No.1 has filed version.

 

(a)    The OP No.1 has contended that, the said complaint is not maintainable.  The complainant has filed the said complaint based on the concocted story.  In the present case the meter is working intact and short circuit is not caused externally and it is due to internal fault within the house. Only partial internal wiring has been burnt.  And the alleged damage was caused due to internal wiring fault.  And it is the duty of the complainant to maintain the internal wiring intact as per IE Rules. 

 

(b)    OP No.1 further contended that, in the report of Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector, it clearly observed that, the guy wire has been shifted by one M/s. Shell Apparels from its original place and someone had set fire near transformer due to which, the wire were burnt.  The said fact was within the knowledge of the complainant and she has suppressed the same. 

 

(c)    The OP No.1 has denied that, they have not maintained safety measures.  OP No.1 have taken all the precautions and safety measures which is evident by tripping of 11 KV line (F8 feeder) within no time and no damages would be caused to the complainant by the alleged short circuit dated: 13.10.2015.  The said complaint is baseless and untenable.

 

(d)    The allegation made in the complaint that, the damages caused to the electrical and electronics property is due to the flow of high voltage is false and incorrect and the same is caused due to negligent act of the complainant, as she has not undertook any safety precautions to the premises.

 

(e)    OP No.1 further contended that, as per the records of the wiring of the complainant’s premises it has been carried out by one Sri. C.S. Narayana Swamy, who is none other than the husband of the complainant.  And the complainant has filed this complaint illegally.  The complainant has failed to maintain the earthing to avoid overload and adopted cost cutting method which leads to alleged damages. 

 

(f)     In the present case the electrical inspector has inspected the installation on 01.02.2016 and on 05.02.2016 and reported about portion of wiring found burnt and other circuit is healthy and it indicates that, burning of cables is not due to passing of 11 KV or high voltage.  The complainant has not produced any document or report by the expert to show that, damages caused is due to flow of high voltage current externally.  The calculation of the damage caused is shown as higher side.  The complainant in her voluntary statement before the police and in the letter addressed to the OPs has not made any claims, whereas in the complainant in the subsequent letters the same is shown as Rs.7,20,700/- and which is unjust.  So contending, the OP No.1 prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint.

 

(g)    Along with the version OP No.1 has produced following three documents:-

(i) Contractor Report dated: 19.10.2014.

 

(ii) Acknowledgement dated: 18.10.2015 issued by the Police Station.

 

(iii) Letter addressed to the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec), BESCOM, Chickaballapur by the complainant.

 

(iv) Letter dated: 20.10.2015 issued by the Complainant to Electrical Inspector, Bangalore.

 

 

04.   On 17.07.2017 one Mr. Raju, the Secretary-cum-Principal of complainant’s College has filed affidavit evidence by way of examination-in-chief along with list of documents as follows:-

(i) True copy of completion report issued by AEE, BESCOM, Chickballapur.

 

(ii) True copy of the Receipt for having purchased 03 phase energy meter.

 

(iii) True copy of the Test Certificate issued by AEE, BESCOM, Bangalore.

 

 

05.   On 14.08.2017 the learned counsel appearing for complainant has submitted Memo along with following two documents:-

(i) One C.D. and 05 photographs.

 

(ii) Report issued by the Deputy Chief of Electrical Inspector, Bangalore.

 

(iii) Envelop card.

 

06.   On 12.09.2017 the learned counsel for complainant has submitted Memo along with following documents:-

(i) Copy of the letter dated: 22.08.2016 issued by the complainant to Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele), Chikkaballapura.

 

(ii) 04 Photos

 

07.   On 12.09.2017 the learned counsel appearing for OP No.1 has submitted affidavit evidence of one Sri. Manjunath, The Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Chikaballapur Sub Division, Chickballapur, by way of examination-in-chief.  On 12.01.2018 the learned counsel appearing for Ops submitted Memo with below mentioned documents:-

 (i)      Temporary and Permanent electricity connection details and also the adjacent connections. 

 

08.   On 17.10.2017 the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ops has filed written arguments. We have heard arguments on both sides. 

 

09.   Now the points that do arise for our consideration are:-

(1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of Ops?

(2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for in the complaint?

(3) What order?

 

10.   Our findings to be above points are:-

POINT (1):-      In the Affirmative

POINT (2):-      Partly Affirmative

POINT (3):-      As per the final order

                                         for the following:-

REASONS

POINT (1) & (2):-

11.   The complainant’s grievance is, due to electrical accident happened on 13.10.2015 at the college running by the complainant which was due to carelessness and negligence act of Ops, the complainant incurred a loss of Rs.7,20,700/-.  Contrary to this Ops have contended that, there is no fault on their part because every consumer should install MCCB so as to avoid any damage due to short circuit, but in this case only partial internal wiring has been burnt.  It is apprehended that the alleged damage is caused due to internal wiring fault and also based on the report given by the Electrical Inspector dated: 01.02.2016 and 05.02.2016 shows there was portion of wiring was found burnt and other circuits were healthy and it is beyond doubt that there was internal fault in the installation in particular circuit.

 

12.   On perusal of the records, it is worth to note that, report dated: 03.11.2015 issued by the Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector, Bangalore, in this regard the cause for incident is recorded as hereunder:-

“11. ¨ÉAQ C¥ÀWÁvÀPÉÌ PÁgÀt:

       vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ w½zÀħAzÀAvÉ, 25 PÉ.«.J «zÀÄåvï ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀzÀ, ºÉZï.f ¥sÀÆåeï AiÀÄĤmï£À, PÀ©âtzÀ PÁèA¥ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 11 PÉ.«. dA¥ï vÀAwAiÀÄ £ÀqÀÄªÉ MAzÀÄ NwPÉÃvÀªÀÅ §AzÁUÀ, PÀ©âtzÀ CqÀØ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ, EzÀPÉÌ ºÉÆA¢PÉÆArzÀÝ, J¯ï.n. «zÀÄåvï ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ £ÀÆålæ¯ï vÀAwAiÀÄ°è 11 PÉ.« «zÀåvï PÀëtÂPÀªÁV ¥ÀæªÀ»¹zÁUÀ, ¸ÀzÀj «zÀÄåvï ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ¢AzÀ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ºÉÆA¢zÀÝ, J¯ï.n «zÀÄåvï ¸ÁܪÀgÀUÀ¼À°è £ÀÆålæ¯ï ªÁºÀPÀzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ C¢üPÀ «zÀÄåvï ¥ÀæªÀ»¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¨ÉAQ C£ÁºÀÄvÀPÉÌ PÁgÀtªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ w½zÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”

 

13.   Further suggestions given as hereunder:-

“V. C¥ÀWÁvÀ ªÀÄgÀÄPÀ½¸ÀzÀAvÉ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄzÁgÀjUÉ w½¸À¯ÁzÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ:-

       «zÀÄåvï ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀUÀ¼À°è ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåðzÀ ¥sÉÆådUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÀƸÀA¥ÀPÀð G¥ÀPÀgÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄgÀQëvÀªÁVgÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀªÀÄ¥ÀðPÀªÁV PÁ¥ÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ PÀ°à¸ÀĪÁUÀ ¸ÁܪÀgÀzÀ°è ¸ÀÆPÀÛ gÀPÀëuÁ G¥ÀPÀgÀtUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄ£ÀªÀjPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÀjAzÀ F jÃwAiÀÄ C¥ÀWÁvÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤AiÀÄAwæ¸À®Ä w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ.”

 

14.   The report of head of the Ops itself clearly discloses that, the cause for incident is due to passing of 11 KV Electricity in the subsidiary supply main line, a big Lizard climbed the pole of 11 KV electricity supply main line and went near the place of HT fuse and structure bracket climbing the electric pole was electrocuted.  Thus in view of the said impact, the 11 KV electricity passed through the supply line of the college resulting to burning of the things in the college.  And also given suggestion as not to repeat such incidence in future to install proper fuse and ground measurements and also to take safety measures as mentioned above.  This itself proves that, the said incident was happened due to negligent act of Ops of not taking proper safety measures.  Therefore there is deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

 

15.   The complainant has sought relief of damages incurred as a sum of Rs.7,20,700/- as in his pleadings as well as in the FIR dated: 28.10.2015 and in the complaint give to the Deputy Electrical Inspector dated: 19.10.2015.  In support of this said damages the complainant has submitted statement of account dated: 13.01.2016 and letter dated: 17.10.2017 and Auditor’s Report and few other invoices of different dates.

 

16.   In our view on going through the entire records of the case only oral pleadings of complainant with regard to the damages but there is no single document in support of this complainant as the damages occurred up to Rs.7,20,700/- and no mahazar was drawn to that effect and so also no photographs were produced to show about the damaged materials as alleged in the incident and there is no cogent evidence about to that effect.

 

17.   Even the report of Deputy Inspector dated: 03.11.2015 remained silent with regard to the cost of damaged of the things as alleged by the complainant.  Moreover all the documents submitted by this complainant does not discloses that, how much had spent for reinstallation.  Therefore in our opinion the complainant has failed to prove the damages as he sought.  Hence without any documentary/oral evidence we cannot assume and believe the compensation as sought by the complainant.  Hence we come to the conclusion that, since the incidence took place on 13.10.2015 was happened due to negligent act of Ops we award compensation of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant which is exclusively recovered from the Ops.  Hence as discussed above we answered these points accordingly.

 

POINT (3):-

18.   In view of the above discussions on Point (1) and (2) we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

01.   For foregoing reasons the complaint is allowed-in-part with costs of Rs.2,000/-.

02.   The complainant is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.40,000/- being the compensation amount which is exclusively recovered from the Ops jointly and severally along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of pronouncement of this order till realization. 

 

03.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us on this 28^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018)

 

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER                                PRESIDENT