DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 30^th day of  May 2024

[                                                                                             

                             Filed on: 24/01/2020

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                            President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                               Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                   Member

C C. No. 39/2020

COMPLAINANT

Sasidharan, S/o.Krishnan, Pannakkattil house, Munduruthi,
Mandham P.O., Ernakulam-683 513

Vs.

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board, Vaidhudi Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram, Pin-695 001
2. Assistant Executive Engineer, Kerala State Electricity Board, Chendhamangalam, Vadakkumpuram P.O., Pin-683 521.
3. Deputy Electrical Inspector, Electrical Inspitarate, O/o.Electrical Inspirate, Vyttila P.O., Ernakulam, Pin-682 019

(op.1 to 3 rep.by Adv.K.N.Radhakrishnan, Standing Counsel KSEB)

F I N A L    O  R  D  E  R

Sreevidhia T.N., Member

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had fall down on 19.09.2015 at 5.45 am due to an electric shock.  The electrocution was happened due to the broken of an electric line drawn over the bathroom of the complainant’s house.  The complainant was hospitalized to the nearby Paravoor Government Hospital, then to Ernakulam General Hospital and then to the Medical College Hospital at Thrissur.  The complainant states that he is having permanent disability now due to the electric shock happened on 19.09.2015.  the complainant is walking with the help of others.  Several complaints were sent to the opposite parties for getting compensation for the electrocution.  There was negligence and serious deficiency in service occurred from the part of the opposite parties towards the complainant.  The opposite party informed the complainant that they are not liable to give compensation to the complainant.  Hence the complainant approached the Commission seeking the redressal of his grievance and to get orders directing the opposite parties 1 and 2.

1.  To give Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to the complainant since the complainant had lost his job due to the deficient action of the opposite party.
2. To give Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant for the treatment expenses.
3. Rs.15,000/- for the future treatment expense
4. Rs.50000/- towards mental agony and pain along with interest at 12% per annum.

2. Notice.

Notice was issued to the opposite parties from this Commission on 03.03.2020.  Opposite party 1 seen served on 07.032020.  The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties seen served on 05.03.2020.

Upon notice 3^rd opposite party appeared and filed their version.  The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties not filed their version after accepting the notice.

3. Version of the 3^rd opposite party

The 3^rd opposite party stated in their version that 3^rd opposite party have no relation with the instant complaint filed by the complainant and the documents filed by the complainant also proves that there is no negligence or deficiency of service occurred from the part of the 3^rd opposite party towards the complainant.  The 3^rd opposite party also contended that no complaint was reported by the complainant against the opposite party during the period mentioned in the complaint.

4. Evidence

Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which were marked as Exbt.A1 to A10.  No oral evidence from the part of the complainant.

          Opposite party has no oral or documentary evidence.

          The complainant was absenting from the 1^st posting date of the case till the date of final hearing.  Opposite party filed argument notes.  Argument notes not filed by the complainant.  Since the complainant is absenting continuously the matter was taken for orders.

5. The issues came up for consideration in this case are as follows.

1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite parties towards the complainant?

2. If so, reliefs and costs?

For the sake of convenience, we have considered issue No.(1) and (2) together.

Exbt.A1: is the X-ray sheet of the complainant’s shoulder dated 23.09.2015 taken at Medivision, North Paravoor.

Exbt.A2: is a Medical Certificate issued to the complainant by Dr.K.G.Jayan dated 23.10.2016.

Exbt.A3 is a copy of the Medical certificate issued by Dr.Anoop Thomas, Consultant, Brain and Spine Surgeon, Lourdhes Hospital, Kochi dated 12.03.2015, for availing financial assistant for treatment.

Exbt.A4 is a letter received to the complainant from Assistant Engineer, KSEB Electrical Section, Chendamangalam.

Exbt.A5  is a Medical Board certificate dated 07.09.2016 showing the complainant’s temporary disability amounts to 8% ( Eight percentage)

Exbt.A6 Treatment details of the complainant at Government Medical College, Ernakulam from 08.06.2015 to 21.07.2015.

Exbt.A7: letter from KSEB dated 25.01.2017, rejecting the claim of the complainant citing the reason that the complainant has no permanent disability as per the certificate issued by the medical board.

Exbt,A8 : Medical certificate issued by Dr.Kiran dated 02.01.2016

Exbt.A9 out patient registration card of the complainant at General Hospital Ernakulam,

Exbt.A10 – Medical chart showing the complainant’s treatment at General Medical college, Ernakulam dated 08.06.2015 to 07.07.2015.

          We have thoroughly examined the facts of the case with the documents and evidence filed in this case.  The complainant states in his complaints that due to the negligence and serious deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties serious injury has occurred to the complainant.  The complainant also states that a complaint has also been made to the opposite party No.2 that the electric line going over the bathroom of the complainant’s house is loose and needs to be repaired.  The complainant states that many complaints have been filed against the opposite parties seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by the complainant.  The opposite parties vide letter dated 25.01.2017 informed the complainant that he is not entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties.  The complainant sates that as a result of the accident, he has lost 70% mobility in his left shoulder.

          We have also perused the arguments of the opposite parties also.  The opposite party argued that the electric shock had happened from the electric shock had happened from the door of the bathroom inside the house.  There was no negligence or deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties 1 to 3.

          As per Exbt.A5 Medical Board Certificate, Active Range of motion (Right) shoulder of the complainant is limited to 70°, passive movement is possible but painful.  The Medical board found that the temporary disability amounts to 8% (Eight percentage).  As per Exbt.A7, the opposite party has informed to the complainant that ‘’in case of non-fatal electric shocks, the electrical safety scheme’ is eligible for giving compensation to the consumers in proportion to the permanent disability.

and as per the certificate issued by the Medical board the complainant is having no permanent ‘disability and hence not entitled for compensation’’.  The opposite party denied the claim of the complainant stating that the complainant has no permanent disability as per Exbt.A8 Medical certificate. The opposite party also states that the electric shock had happened from the door of the bathroom inside the house of the complainant.

          In the instant case, the complainant has not produced sufficient documents to prove that the electrocution was happened due to the negligence or deficiency in service of the opposite parties.  The complainant states that he had made a complaint to the 2^nd opposite party requesting the repair of the electric line going over the bathroom of the complainant’s house.  But the complainant has not produced any evidence to prove this fact.

          In a catena of decision it has been established that the burden of proof lies with the complainant to demonstrate negligence or deficiency in service by presenting evidence before the Commission.  Mere allegations of negligence are insufficient to support the complainant’s case.  Consequently, the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite parties.

          In the case of SGS India Ltd Vs Dolphin International Ltd 2021 AIR SC 4849 held that ‘’the onus of proof of deficiency in service is on the complainant in the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It is the complainant who had approached the Commission and therefore, without any proof of deficiency the opposite party cannot be held responsible for deficiency in service.

          After careful consideration, the case presented by the complainant is considered to be without merit and the following orders are issued.  The Commission has determined  that the contentions raised by the complainant lack merit.  The issue Nos. (1) and (2) are found not in favour of the complainant and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Pronounced in the open commission on 30^th day of May  2024

Sd/-

                                                                                    Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

Sd/-

D.B.Binu, President

Sd/-

                                                                                    V.Ramachandran, Member

Forwarded by Order

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s evidence

Exbt.A1: is the X-ray sheet of the complainant’s shoulder dated 23.09.2015 taken at Medivision, North Paravoor.

Exbt.A2: is a Medical Certificate issued to the complainant by Dr.K.G.Jayan dated 23.10.2016.

Exbt.A3 is a copy of the Medical certificate issued by Dr.Anoop Thomas, Consultant, Brain and Spine Surgeon, Lourdhes Hospital, Kochi dated 12.03.2015, for availing financial assistant for treatment.

Exbt.A4 is a letter received to the complainant from Assistant Engineer, KSEB Electrical Section, Chendamangalam.

Exbt.A5  is a Medical Board certificate dated 07.09.2016 showing the complainant’s temporary disability amounts to 8% ( Eight percentage)

Exbt.A6 Treatment details of the complainant at Government Medical College, Ernakulam from 08.06.2015 to 21.07.2015.

Exbt.A7: letter from KSEB dated 25.01.2017, rejecting the claim of the complainant citing the reason that the complainant has no permanent disability as per the certificate issued by the medical board.

Exbt,A8 : Medical certificate issued by Dr.Kiran dated 02.01.2016

Exbt.A9 out patient registration card of the complainant at General Hospital Ernakulam,

Exbt.A10 – Medical chart showing the complainant’s treatment at General Medical college, Ernakulam dated 08.06.2015 to 07.07.2015.

Opposite party’s evidence :  nil

Date of dispatch         ::

By Hand  ::                 By Post