Kerala

StateCommission

A/09/615

The Secretary, KSEB - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vijayalekshmi - Opp.Party(s)

S.Balachandran

03 Mar 2010

ORDER

First Appeal No. A/09/615
(Arisen out of Order Dated 30/05/2009 in Case No. CC 55/08 of District Kollam)
1. The Secretary, KSEBKerala ...........Appellant(s)

Versus
1. VijayalekshmiKerala ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE :
HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU PRESIDENTHONORABLE SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN MemberHONORABLE SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR Member
PRESENT :

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

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

 

 

APPEAL No. 615/2009

 

JUDGMENT DATED:  03-03-2010

 

 

PRESENT:

 

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU            :  PRESIDENT

 

 

APPELLANTS

 

 

1.      The Secretary,

          KSEB, Thiruvananthapuram.

 

2.      The Assistant Executive Engineer,

          Maintenance:  66 KV Sub Station,

Edapone, Karunagappally.

 

 

                    (Rep. by Adv. Sri. S. Balachandran)

 

                  

Vs

 

 

RESPONDENT

 

Vijayalekshmi,

W/o Somarajan Pillai,

Ananda Bhavan, Vengara, Thodiyoor,

Karunagappally.

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

 

 

                        The appellants are the opposite parties/KSEB in CC No. 55/2008 in the file of CDRF, Kollam.  The appellants are under orders to pay sum of Rs. 24,650/- as compensation and Rs. 1,000/- as costs.

 

          2.          The case of the complainant is that on 25-08-2007 in the midnight 66 KV line near the house of the complainant fell on the single phase line and as a result on account of high voltage of energy passed the electric and electronic devices at the house of the complainant and others were damaged.  Although the matter was intimated to the officials of the opposite party, they have not cared to look into the matter.  The complainant and 6 others have on 15-09-2007 filed complaint before the 4th opposite party Executive Engineer.  But no action has been taken.  They have not assessed the loss sustained to the complainant and others.  Lawyer notice sent was replied to mentioning untenable contentions.  It is only on account of the negligence of the opposite parties that the incident has taken place.  The complainant’s electronic equipments ie, TV worth Rs. 14,500/-; DVD player costing Rs. 4,000/-; CD cassette player valued at Rs. 3,000/-; satellite radio valued at Rs. 2,000/- and V Guard stabilizer worth Rs. 1,000/- were damaged.  The complainant has sought for payment of the above amounts ie, Rs. 24,500/-.

 

          3.          The opposite parties have filed version admitting the incident but denying the alleged damages to the electronic equipments.  It is denied that any complaint has been lodged before the authorities.  It is contended that the incident has happened due to heavy rain and storm.  It is further contended that it was the duty of the complainant to install safety devices.  It is only on account of the low quality of fuse wire used that the damages if any might have occurred.

 

          4.          The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DWs 1 and 2, Exts. P1 to P4 series and D1 and D2.

 

          5.          We find that the complainant has produced the copy of the representation submitted by the complainant and others before the 4th opposite party.  Further it is admitted that the alleged incident of falling of the 66 KV line has taken place.  Evidently high voltage would be released.  It is the duty of the opposite parties to see that the lines are drawn, especially such high voltage power lines in a manner that the same does not result in any loosening, falling etc.  Heavy rain and wind is no defense if damages has resulted due to the failure of the installations.  It was strongly contended by the Counsel for the appellant that there is no independent evidence, no Commission etc. taken to assess the damages.  The complainant/respondent who appeared in person evidently was not conversant with such procedural formalities.  We find that the opposite parties represented by the Counsel ought to have taken the initiative in the matter.  The complainant has produced Ext.P2 bill for the purchase for the electronic equipments allegedly destroyed.  She has also asserted that the above electronic equipments are still kept in her house in damaged condition and beyond repair.  We find no reason to disbelieve the case of the respodnet/complainant/PW1.  In the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere in the order of the Forum below.

 

                    In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

 

                    The opposite parties are directed to make the payment within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 15% per annum from the date of this order.

 

                    The office is directed to forward the LCR along with the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.

 

 

 

 

                                       JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU:   PRESIDENT

 

PRONOUNCED :
Dated : 03 March 2010

[HONORABLE JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU]PRESIDENT[HONORABLE SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN]Member[HONORABLE SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR]Member