BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

C.C. No. 365/2022 Filed on 19/09/2022

ORDER DATED:  30/05/2024

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

          The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.  The brief facts of the case is that the complainant for installing a lightening arrester contacted the opposite party and the opposite party agreed to install lightening arrester for an amount of Rs.45,500/-.  As a first step for installing the lightening arrester the complainant spend an amount of Rs.4,500/- for making a pit.  At the time of installing the lightning arrester the opposite party had given 2 years guarantee and 20 years service card to the complainant.   But on 21/04/2022 due to thunder and lightning the electric equipments of the complainant like TV, CC camera, inverter, internet connection and two ceiling fans where got damaged.  The complainant has to spend about Rs.76,300/- for repairing all those things.  The complainant informed these things to the opposite party.  But there was no response from them. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

The opposite party entered appearance and filed version. The opposite party has averred that the opposite party is not responsible for the damages caused due to high voltage through electric line or through telephonic line, which is expressly stated as 7^th point in guarantee and service card.  The complainant has not provided any evidence to prove his allegation.  There is no deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party, hence the complaint may be dismissed with the cost.

Issues to be ascertained:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Issues (i) & (ii):- Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience.  The complainant has filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and has produced the 6 documents which were marked as Exts.P1 to P6.  The opposite party has filed proof affidavit and has no documentary evidence.  The complainant and opposite party filed arguments notes.  On going through Ext.P1 it can be seen that the opposite party has installed the lightening arrester in the premises of the complainant.  The opposite party has contended that as per the terms and conditions in Ext.P2 “the Lightening Arrester system never protects the high voltage through electronic line or telephonic line”.  However the complainant in his proof affidavit has clearly stated that the electronic equipments was damage not due to the high voltage through electronic or telephonic line.  The opposite party has not produced any contra evidence to disprove the evidence given by the complainant.  If a complainant is able to create a reasonable degree of probability that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party the onus shifts of the opposite party to discharge the onus to prove its denial.  In this case the opposite party has not produced any evidence before this Commission to prove that the damages caused to the electronic equipments was not due to the fault of the lightening arrester.  So on going through the evidence of the complainant it can be seen that the electronic equipments of the complainant got damaged due to the improper functioning of lightening arrester.  Even though the complainant has alleged that he has spend an amount of Rs.76,300/- for repairing his TV, CC camera, panel and for fans, he has not produced any evidence to prove the same.  However ongoing though Ext.P5 and P6 it can be seen that he has spend Rs.1,300/- and Rs.2,400/- for repairing CC camera and inverter respectively.  But he has not produced any evidence to show that he has spent amount for repairing his TV, Panels and fan. 

In the result the complaint is partly allowed.  The opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.45,500/- (Rupees Forty Five Thousand Five Hundred Only) to the complainant and can take back the lightening arrester and also pay Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred Only) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till realization. 

  A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 30^th  day of May,  2024.

                         Sd/-

            P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT 

                       Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR              : MEMBER    

                       Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER                                                                                

C.C. No. 365/2022

APPENDIX

  I         COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

        Sd/-

PRESIDENT

R