-::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

                                                               C.C. No.44/2018.

                                                            Date of filing: 23.07.2018.

                                                                   Date of disposal:   13.06.2019.

P R E S E N T:-    

                              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,                                                                                                                                                                                                     B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                President.

                             (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

COMPLAINANT/S:           Shankar rao Savle, S/o Late Vithalrao Savle,

                                             Age: 57 years, Occ: Private work,

                                              R/o H.No. 9-5-623 Adarsh 1^st colony,

                                              Near Sai Baba Temple, Bidar-585402.   

                                           (By Sri. Deshpande P.M., Adv.)                                        

                                                                 VERSUS

OPPONENT/S:                  1.  The Executive Engineer, 

                                               GESCOM, Bidar.

                                            2.  The Deputy Electrical Inspectorate

                                               Bhind GESCOM Office, Jyoti Colony,

                                                   Bidar.                             

                                         (By Sri. Mahesh S.Patil., Adv.)

::   J UD G M E N T  ::

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

This complaint is alleging deficiency of service in the part of the opponents U/s12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 and the fact of the complaint is as described underneath.

2.        The complainant claims himself to be the owner of homestead property described in the cause title and is a bonafide Consumer under the opponent No.1 having obtained electrical connection vide Metre R.R.no. 65969 A.  He remits the bills raised by the opponent from time to time.  On 03.04.2018 morning about 4.30 a.m. high voltage fluctuations in electricity supply occurred, causing electrical fire and the inferno extensively damaged appliances like T.V., Fridge, Fans, Switch boards and other installations in the house.  In spite of his efforts the fire could not be controled.  The complainant had informed the opponent who inspected the spot of accident and had assessed the loss and damages sustained but, has opted to keep quiet.  It is further avered that, the opponent even had inspected the earthing aspect of the electrical supply which was found to be intact and faultless.

3.         The complainant assessed his loss to the tune of Rs.38,000/- as elaborated in col. No.6 of the complainant detailing the damages to the Fridge, T.V. four fans, bulbs, switch board, wire linings, plug, sockets and other miscellaneous items and claims that the amount assessed by him should be compensated.

4.         The O.P.no.1 entering appearance upon notice has filed written versions.  In the same the complainant is called as false and baseless but the fact of service of the electricity supply is admitted.  There is an abject denial regarding the electrical appliances and damages thereto and also the contention regarding power fluctuation.  The information of electrical accident has been admitted but, fact of earthing system inspection is denied.  The unfairness of service has been disputed by the O.P.no.1, so also the claim of compensation the complaint being not maintainable is sought to be dismissed with cost.

5.         The opponent no.2 a statutory body upon Court notice has submitted the copy of it’s inspection report with a forwarding letter at Annexure-R.1

6.        Considering the claims and counter claims of the rival parties, the following points arise for our consideration.

1. Does the complainant prove deficiency of service?
2. Does the opponent no.1 prove no deficiency  ?
3. Can any deficiency of service be clamped against O.P.no.2?
4. What orders?

7.         Our answers to the points raised are as follows:-

1. In the affirmative.
2. In the negative.
3. In the negative.
4. As per the final orders owing to the following:-

                                       :: REASONS ::

8.         Points (a) & (b) proceed hand in hand and are to be considered collectively.  The fact of electrical provision to the homestead of the complainant is admission, so also the spot inspection on receipt of information, albeit the next day.  The art of feigning surprise about the damages to the equipments is nothing but an unholy escape route being adopted by the O.P.No.1.  After all it is on record in Annexure-R.1 that, the elctricial inspectorate had conducted inspection upon intimation of the O.P.No.1.  The complainant has produced numbers of color photos proving damages to his electrical equipments and the O.P.no.2 an independent agency of the sovereign at the end of the report at  (D) and (E)  has attributed the cause of high voltage function to the negligent act of the O.P.No.1 in violation of central electrical Rules vide point (D) the improper maintenance has been attributed to the negligent maintenance of O.P.no.1.  Hence we answer the points accordingly.

9.         Points (c) the institution of Electrical Inspectorate has been constituted as per law by the sovereign to inspect, regulate and prescribe proper maintenance of electrical supply provisions in technical and legal terms.  It has no direct nexus in the energy supply and with the individual Consumers.  It’s services are rendered free of cost.  Hence the complainant cannot maintain a case against O.P.no.2 alleging deficiency of service and the case is liable to be dismissed against O.P.no.2.

10.       Point (d) Concluding that, there is deficiency of service in the part of the O.P.no.1, we now attempt to ascertain just compensation to be payable to the complaint.  The complainant has alleged loss of electrical equipments at his house due to damages and has estimated it at Rs.38,000/- initially.  Though in the evidence affidavit he has tried to enhance the quantum.  In para 6 of the complaint, we see an estimate of Rs.5,000/- for other miscellaneous which is not explicit and vague in nature.  We are constrained to exclude that part of the calculation being unfit to be considered.  As far as the claim of the rest Rs.3,300/, though we observe  from the colour photos damages to the fridge, T.V. and other items.  Even though not inspected and reported by the O.P.no.2, damages are established.  The issue is but, what were the real cost of the elements and when they were procured.  A proper and judicious depreciation of the value of the equipments has to be applied and in the absence of information forthcoming from either side,  we calculate a depreciation of minimum 10% on the equipments which works out to be Rs.3,300/- leaving a balance of Rs.29,700/- to be allowed as compensation to the complainant for deficiency of service in the part of the O.P.no.1 an consequential damages. The complainant has not claimed any other compensation and hence we prefer to remain tight lipped on that aspect and proceed to pass the following:

::ORDER::

The complaint is allowed in part.

1.  The Opponent no.1 is hereby directed to compensate a sum of Rs.29,700/- to the complainant with 12% interest p.a. calculated from the date of the fire accident i.e. 03.04.2018 till the date of realisation.

2. The O.P.no.1 is further sadded with a litigation expense of Rs.2,500/- payable to the complainant;

3. Case against O.P.no.2 stands dismissed.
4. Four weeks time granted to comply this order.

 (Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this  13^th day of June 2019).

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                 President.     

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Annexure.A to F -Color photographs denoting damages to the    

                                    electrical  equipments.

2. Annexure.G– Copy of electricity bill.  
3. Annexure.H- Copy of Aadhar Card.
4. Annexure.J-   (‘ I’ excluded) office copy of legal notice dt.28.04.2018.      
5. Annexure K & L- Postal receipts.

 Document produced by the Opponents.

1. Annexure-R1- Letter dt.23.08.2018 of the O.P.no.2 with copy of

                              inspection report to the Forum.

Witness examined.

Complainant.

1. P.W.1- Sr. Shankar Rao S/o Late Vithal rao Salve  (Complainant).

Opponent.

1. R.W.1-  Sri. Basawaraj S/o Appa Rao Patil, Executive Engineer O & M, Bidar- Opponent no.1.

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

       Member.                                                                   President.