BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
SRI M.V.R. SHARMA, MEMBER
Wednesday, 16th December 2015
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 74/ 2015
Dr. Gorla Nagi Reddy, S/o G. Subba Reddy,
Residing in House No. 42/337-33,
Bhagyanagar Colony, Kadapa ….. Complainant.
Vs.
1. The Superintendent Engineer (Operation),
APSPDCL, Vidyuth Bhavan Near P.f. Office, Kadapa.
2. The Asst. Engineer (Operation), Section Office,
Near Nallarthi Midde, Bhagyanagar Colony, Kadapa. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 09-12-2015 in the presence of complainant in person and Sri C.S. Riyazuddin, Advocate for opposite parties 1 & 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the opposite parties to pay ₹ 20,000/- towards cost of damage of goods, ₹ 950/- towards cost of meter collected by opposite parties, ₹ 5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, ₹ 2,000/- towards cost of complaint and ₹ 10,000/- towards loss of professional practice with interest at 12% p.a. on account of financial loss caused by the negligence of opposite parties.
2. The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainant has electricity supply to his house, a single phase 2 wires USC No. 211431044406 and HSC No. 044406 from nearby by distribution transformer about 200 meters from his house. Electricity charges were collected for every month as per tariff rates by demand bill by the APSPDCL company, Kadapa circle with permitted load of 18.80 KW and using load of 18.80 K.W per month and he is L.T. consumer and paying electricity bills regularly and purchasing electricity from the licensee APSPDCL by undertaking certain laid down quality and safety regulation providing reasonable security and quality without abnormal voltage fluctuations. While so on 12-4-2015 there was a huge sound from the distributor transformer near his house with flames, fumes and smoke emanating from the site, when we were sitting portico of our house. They noticed huge sound and smoke from the electricity meter in their house and part of it was burnt out in to ashes and electricity supply was disrupted to his house. They also noticed damage of electrical goods viz., five ceiling fans, five tube lights, one refrigerator, one Geiger, one water pump, 1 split A.C in his house due to passage of high voltage from the damaged transformer. There was no natural calamity like storm, lightening or thundering on that day. Immediately the complainant telephoned to the Section Office of Asst. Engineer and appraised him to the facts requesting him to restore current supply and inspect the burnt meter in his house. Their people attended the site at the transformer and restored the supply taking service of private person at pole and transformer. Then there was supply with normal voltage when they restored supply the corrected transformer problem. They did not inspect the house of complainant. Thus there is guilty of deficiency of service and performance standards.
3. On 13-4-2015 a complaint was registered with the Section Asst. Engineer besides requesting to inspect his house but he never bothered. On 15-4-2015 again he requested to replace the damaged meter and compensate the damaged goods. But the opposite parties remained silent, then taken the matter to the notice of Superintending Engineer (Operation) on 25-4-2015 and the officers from his office inspected the house and meter was replaced by collecting ₹ 950/- from the complainant. But he was silent for compensating the loss suffered. On 28-4-2015 he sent notice to the Superintendent Engineer (Operation) Kadap and Chief General Manager, APSPDCL, Tirupati pointing out the deficiency of service and damage to goods and claimed compensation to the loss of ₹ 20,000/-. But not paid. They gave reply notice with false allegations and they are not true. The supply has to be specific quality without abnormal functions. The opposite parties are deficient in service as they failed in giving normal supply to the complainant. Therefore, caused damaged to his goods. Hence, distribution licensee is liable to pay the economic loss towards damages to the complainant. The contentions of opposite parties in reply notice are not correct and it is only self-serving document. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
4. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant in his complaint and deficiency of service on their part. However the opposite parties admitted that the complainant has obtained service connection to his house under HSC No. 044406 for capacity of 1.88 K.W but denied other allegations. They denied the complainant was permitted for load of 18.80 K.W and is using 18.80 K.W. There was no complaint or information to the opposite parties about the incident shown either earlier or after information on 13-4-2015. In notice dt. 13-4-2015 the complainant shown that two fans in second house and one fan in his first house were burnt, he did not mention other articles damaged. The opposite parties sanctioned load of 1.88 K.W to the complainant house but the complainant was using 5.78 K.W and this was got knowledge by the complainant after receipt of reply notice dt. 3-5-2015 and he paid additional load of ₹ 5,725/- by admitting the offence about the using of high load instead of contracted load. Hence, it is fault on the part of the complainant and not on the part of the department. There is separate forum for the electricity board called as ‘Consumer Grievance Redressal Forum’ Tirupati and thus this court had no jurisdiction. He did not approached for proper court and filed this vexatious complaint. The certificate issued by Ramachandraiah, Private electrician, who is neither expert nor Government Electrician and same is null and void. The other allegations are not correct. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.
- Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as pleaded by the complainant?
- Whether the complainant sustained damage to his articles worth of ₹ 20,000/- as pleaded?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation as claimed from the opposite parties?
- To what relief?
6. No oral evidence has been let in by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Exs. A1 to A10 documents and on behalf of the opposite parties Exs. B1 to B5 documents are marked.
7. Heard arguments on both sides and considered the written arguments filed by them.
8. Point No. 1. The complainant contended that he is a consumer of Electricity purchased form the opposite parties and has been regularly paying bills but there were fluctuations and due to high voltage on 12-4-2015 the transformer near his house was burnt and his meter sustained damage and burnt in to ashes. Due to passage of high voltage to his house his house hold articulates viz., 5 fans, 1 refrigerator, 1 A.C. machine, 5 tube lights, 1 Geiger and 1 water pump motor were burnt and sustained damage and he spent ₹ 20,000/- to fix the various damaged articles through one E. Ramachandraiah, Electrician and the opposite parties failed to render service and thus there is deficiency of service on their part. Therefore, he is entitled for compensation.
9. Per contra learned counsel for opposite parties vehemently contended that there was no burnt of transformer as contended by the complainant and no damage of articles to him and the certificate Ex. A6 given by the Private Electrician cannot be accepted as it was not proved and it is bereft of details of service charges. Further contended that even if there is any damage to articles as pleaded by the complainant it is only due to his using of excess load and default wiring in his house and cannot blame the department for the supply of electricity. He also contended that as per Ex. A1 notice dt. 13-4-2015 the complainant stated only burnt of 3 fans and not any other articles. So it cannot be believed that the articles viz., 5 fans, 1 refrigerator, 1 A.C. machine, 5 tube lights, 1 Geiger and 1 water pump motor were burnt on 12-4-2015, thus the complainant failed to prove the same and the complaint is liable to be dismissed, as no defective service on the part of the opposite parties.
10. There is considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for the opposite parties. There is no dispute in this case that the complainant obtained service for the supply of electricity to his house from the opposite parties under HSC No. 044406. It is the case of complainant that due to negligence of the opposite parties transformer near his house was burnt due to that high voltage passed to his house and his household articles 5 fans, 1 refrigerator, 1 A.C. machine, 5 tube lights, 1 Geiger and 1 water pump motor were damaged. But the same was bluntly denied by the opposite parties as no such complaints from anybody of the residents in the locality regarding supply of current on 12-4-2015 and burnt of transformer. So the complainant has to prove all the allegations that he sustained loss of articles as mentioned above due to passage of high voltage to his house due to burnt of transformer near his house. Except his pleadings regarding burnt of transformer and due to that passing of high voltage of his house there is no evidence place by him. He did not place any evidence to prove that the transformer was burnt on 12-4-2015 and he sustained damage to the articles.
11. It may be noted that here the complainant addressed a letter on 13-4-2015 under Ex. A1 to the Asst. Engineer, APSPDCL, Kadapa regarding disruption electricity on 12-4-2015 of course he stated in the letter that there was a huge noise at transformer near Astalaxmi Kalyanamandapam followed by disruption of current supply to his house. But he did not say that the transformer was burnt. A perusal of the above letter Ex. A1 shows that his meter in the house was burnt, three fans in his house have been burnt. The complainant did not say in the earliest letter addressed to the Asst. Engineer under Ex. A1, dt. 13-4-2015 that 5 fans, 1 refrigerator, 1 A.C. machine, 5 tube lights, 1 Geiger and 1 water pump motor were either burnt or get damaged. So it cannot be believed that the above articles were burnt or get damaged in the alleged incident dt. 12-4-2015 due to passing of high voltage to his house. So also in Ex. A2 letter dt. 15-4-2015 the complainant did not say the above articles were get damaged. He simply stated his electrical and electronic items were damaged worth of ₹ 20,000/-. In Ex. A3 notice and Ex. A4 notice also he did not mentioned the above articles and damage to him. First time he mentioned fans, refrigerator, A.C. machine, tube lights, Geiger and water pump motor in Ex. A5 letter dt. 28-4-2015 addressed to the Chief General Manager, APSPDCL, Tirupati but not shown any amount spent with regard to the damaged articles viz., 5 fans, 1 refrigerator, 1 A.C. machine, 5 tube lights, 1 Geiger and 1 water pump motor as pleaded by the complainant. If at all there was any damage to the above articles and they were not functioned the complainant would have brought to the notice to the Asst. Engineer in his letter dt. 13-4-2015 under Ex. A1, but no such thing was brought to the notice of the opposite parties in the notice dt. 13-4-2015 issued by the complainant. So as observed supra there is any suspicion or doubt about the damage of articles worth of ₹ 20,000/- or complainant paid such amount either to purchase them or to fix the same in his house by one E. Ramachandraiah as per Ex. A6.
12. Even though the complainant relied Ex. A7 statement of one D. Kanakamma, who is resident of House No. 42/337 that she heard huge sound from the transformer in front of her house and four ceiling fans in her house were damaged, but the same Kanakamma gave statement to the opposite parties under Ex. B5 stating that she did not sustained any damage to his articles but she simply signed on a paper at the instances of the complainant without knowing the contents. So no importance can be given to Ex. A7. If at all there was any breakdown of transformer and due to that passed high voltage in the locality there would have been damage to the articles near by the residents of transformer and they would have complained to the opposite parties. But none complained to the opposite parties regarding damage of transformer or passage of high voltage causing damage to their electrical and electronic articles. As seen from Exs. B2 & B3 the complainant paid additional load charges of ₹ 5,725/- on 29-5-2015 after Ex. A1 reply notice by the opposite parties. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for distribution of supply to the house of complainant and if at all any damage was caused to the articles, either due to faulty wiring in the house of complainant or excess usage of load by him. Thus we hold there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties as pleaded by the complainant. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered.
13. Point No. 2. In Point No. 1 above it is clearly held that the complainant failed to prove complainant sustained damaged articles viz., 5 fans, 1 refrigerator, 1 A.C. machine, 5 tube lights, 1 Geiger and 1 water pump motor without suspicion as he failed to mentioned the damage of above articles in Ex. A1 letter dt. 13-4-2015 and failed to prove that he spent ₹ 20,000/- to fix the above articles as per Ex. A6. Therefore, we hold that the complainant failed to prove the damages as pleaded. Accordingly Point No. 2 is answered against the complainant.
14. Point No. 3. In view of the findings of Point No. 1 & 2 the complainant is not entitled for compensation as claimed from the opposite parties and the opposite parties are not liable to pay compensation to the complainant and complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly point No. 3 is answered against the complainant.
15. Point No. 4. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 16th December 2015
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Respondent : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex: A1 Letter Dt. 13-4-2015 addressed to the Assistant Engineer.
Ex: A2 Letter Dt. 15-4-2015 addressed to the Assistant Engineer.
Ex: A3 Letter Dt. 21-4-2015 addressed to the Superintendent Engineer.
Ex: A4 Registered Notice Dt. 25-4-2015 to the Superintendent Engineer.
Ex: A5 Registered Notice Dt. 28-4-2015 to the Chief General Manager, Tirupathi.
Ex: A6 Certificate from the Private Electrical Contractor, Prakash Nagar, Kadapa.
Ex: A7 Statement from resident in House No.42-337-3D, Kanakamma.
Ex: A8 Copy of reply notice from Council to APSPDCL., Kadapa.
Ex: A9 Copies of electricity expenditure notices with receipts from
Feb, 15 to May, 15.
Ex: A10 Cash receipt for ₹ 950/- towards meter charges.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party No.1.
Ex:B1 Reply notice given to complainant, dt.9-5-2015.
Ex:B2 Additional load demand notice Dt. 29-5-2015.
Ex:B3 Amount paid by the Complainant for additional load a sum of
Rs….. Dt. 14-9-2015.
Ex:B4 Statements of the neighbors saying without loss.
Ex:B5 Statement of D. Kanakamma.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
1) Dr. Gorla Nagi Reddy, S/o G. Subba Reddy,
Residing in House No. 42/337-33,
Bhagyanagar Colony, Kadapa
2) Sri C.S. Riyazuddin, Advocate for opposite parties
B.V.P. - - -
