Kerala

Idukki

C.C No.211/2006

Issac Issac - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Secretary - Opp.Party(s)

30 May 2008

ORDER


CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Idukki, Kuyilimala, Painavu PO-685603
consumer case(CC) No. C.C No.211/2006

Issac Issac
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

The Executive Engineer
The Secretary
The Exe.Engineer
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:
1. Bindu Soman 2. Laiju Ramakrishnan 3. Sheela Jacob

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) The complainant is having an electric connection under Moolamattom Electrical Section in area code No.6AB for his residential building as Consumer No.302. On 9.03.2005 night, due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, 220 KV electric line broke and fell on the 3 phase line from which the complainant's consumer connection was provided and caused CT short circuit and heavy voltage conducted to the service wire of the complainant's house. Due to the transmission of the heavy electric power serious damages caused to all electrical equipments and wiring of the complainant. The same was caused to many houses there. There was no guard line drawn below the 220 KV line over the 3 phase line. A mahazar prepared by the Assistant Engineer, Electricity Board on 10.03.2005 stating that there is a loss of Rs.25,000/- was caused to the complainant due to this incident. The amount estimated in the mahazar is very low. The electrical equipments of the complainant were irreparably lost. Now new instruments were purchased by the complainant due to that incident. A TV cost Rs.15,700/-, fridge cost Rs.9,000/-, a mixie cost Rs.2,500/-, VCD Rs.3,000/-, Voltage stabilizer Rs.3,100/-, 4 tubelight chalk cost Rs.1,200/-, wiring repairing cost Rs.4,250/-, washing machine Rs.7,500/- and a digital tuner Rs.4,000/-. Thus a total loss of Rs.50,250/- was estimated by the complainant. Even though the mahazar prepared by the Electricity Board showed Rs.25,000/- as the loss that amount also not at all given to the complainant by the opposite parties. The damage was caused only because of the fialure on the part of the opposite parties in taking protective measures to avoid conduct of the high tension power supply with 3 phase low tension line which amounts to deficiency in service according to the complainant. So the complainant claimed compensation under various heads. 2. In the written version filed by the opposite parties, it is very clearly admitted that the complainant is a customer of Electrical Section, Moolamattom as consumer No.302/VLTM. The registered connected load in the premises are 5 light points and 3 plug points with a total connected load of 380 watts. It is true that a break down had occurred in Iduki Lower Periyar 220 KV feeder on 9.03.2005 at about 10.53 P.M. at Elamdesam due to de-capping of insulator disc. As the Board has made sufficient protection by providing protection mechanism to the EHT lines, the feeder has tripped automatically and switched off, when the de-capping has occurred. Hence the 220 KV line has become off instantly when the insulator disc de-capped and the conductor fell on the ground. Hence there was no flow of electricity from 220 KV line to LT line. Moreover, the consumer installation is provided with sufficient protective devices such as LT fuses, main switch and earth leak circuit breakers etc. for avoiding damage due to voltage fluctuation. Fuse unit of rating 2340 Volt, 15 A is provided at the supply point of the consumer premises and immdeiately after the main switch. Hence when the voltage or current exceeds the rating of the fuses, the fuses will blow off and supply to the installation will be cut off. The allegation that the break down occurred in 220 KV line due to improper maintnance and deficiency of service on the part of the responsdent are baseless. The de-capping has occurred due to lightning, which is beyond the control of the opposite parties. The damage was due to the defect in the installation or the equipment switches and plugs are installed in the premises on the basis of capacity of equipments. If there is a chance for passing more current through the electrical appliances due to over voltage, the supply to the equipment will be arrested by burning the fuses. Moreover purchase bill of the electric equipments in 9 Nos. are damaged, purchased are of the name of the complainant's son. So it is clear that the equipment mentioned in the complaint are not owned by the complainant himself. The price of the equipments mentioned are highly exorbitant. So the complainant has not sought the permission of the Board for installing the said equipments in his house and to use the same with the energy supplied by the Board. As per the conditions of supply of electrical energy, the Board is not liable for the loss if any sustained by the consumer due to fluctuations to the supply or non-supply. 3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ? 4. The evidence conists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P11 on the side of the complainant. No oral evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Ext.R1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties. 5. The POINT :- It is very clear from the written version filed by the opposite parties that the complainant is a consumer and so there is no dispute reagrding the same. The dispute raises whether any damages caused to the electrical equipments of complainant and if so, how much is the damage. Ext.P2 is the mahazar prepared by the Assistant Engineer of opposite party on the very next day ie, on 10.03.2005. What is stated in Ext.P2 is that in the night of 9.03.2005 due to lightning, the Idukki Lower Periyar 220 KV line No.1 feeder broke and fell down in the property of Thannickal Iype of Elamdesam-Vetickamattom and it fell on the 3 phase line due to LT short circuit and damage has been caused to the house hold utensils on the houses in that area. It is also stated that necessary maintanance work for the same was started and seperate lists showing the damages caused to the equipments in the houses also has been prepared. It is stated that TV, fridge and VCD of the complainant has been damaged due to the incident. Exts.P8 and P9 are the copy of the judgements of this Forum in C.C No.101/05 and C.C No.201/05 respectively. In both the cases the same complaint was given before the Forum by two other persons due to same incident and award was passed against the Electricity Board for compensation. So it is very clear that these damages has been occurred to many people who were living thereby . It means that the damage has been caused due to the poor maintenance of the power line in question which would amount to deficiency in service. Ext.P1, the affidavit filed by PW1, who is the son of the complainant shows the details of the damages caused to the equipments. The complainant calimed Rs..50,250/- by way of compensastion. In the written version filed by the opposite parties, it is contended that the details of the equipments damaged which are produced are exorbitant rate and all are in the name of the son of the complainant. It cannot be maintainable by the evidence of PW1. The affidavit says that PW1 and his father are living together and his father is laid up due to old age. So he is not able to come and give evidence. Exts.P10 and P11 are the copy of the Election Commissioin Identity Cards issued to PW1 and the to the complainant. Both the addresses are the same and house No. also the same. So there is no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1. Ext.R1 produced by the opposite parties says that it is an application form and an agreement given by the complainant in the Electricity Board on 13th January 1982 for his house connection. In that the permitted power supply was 380 Watt. So they are not liable for the unauthorised wiring done by the complainant. PW1 says that he has given an application for further wiring and it was sanctioned by the opposite parties. Anyway, the mahazar prepared by the opposite party did not say about the unauthorised wiring. The bill produced by PW1 for the TV set is of Rs.7,500/- and that is Ext.P7 and the bill produced by PW1 to the DVD is only of Rs.3,000/- ie, Ext.P5. Ext.P6, the bill produced by the complainant for the fridge is dated 1.09.2006. Iit cannot be reliable because it was purchased after a long period. The rate of voltage stabilizer, tubelight chalk, wiring etc. are exorbitant. We think fit to estimate Rs.7,500/- for TV, Rs.3,000/- for DVD and Rs.2,000/- for voltage stabilizeer, Rs.500/- for tubelight chalk and Rs.2,200/- for wiring repairing. We think that an ordinary prudent man may not connect the washing machine and mixie in the night at 10.30 P.M. So the claim for washing machine and mixie are denied. So the complainant is entitled to get a total compensation of Rs.,15,200/- with 12% interest. He is also entitled to get Rs.2,000/- for the cost of the petition. In the result, the opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,200/- with 12% interest from 10.03.2005 and cost Rs.2,000/- within 30 days of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the outstanding amount shall carry further interest at 12% per annum from the date of default. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 16th day of May, 2008.




......................Bindu Soman
......................Laiju Ramakrishnan
......................Sheela Jacob