Date of Filing:14.07.2009<br /> Date of Order: 13.05.2010<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 13TH DAY OF MAY 2010<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1649 OF 2009 <br /> <br /> <br /> Mr. S.V. Venkatachala Setty,<br /> S/o S.Venkatappa,<br /> R/at MIG-47, 2nd Stage, KHB Colony<br /> Basaveshwarnagar, <br /> Bangalore-79. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> 1.The Managing Director<br /> BESCOM Ltd., K.R.Circle,<br /> Bangalore-1. <br /> <br /> 2.The Executive Engineer,<br /> BESCOM North, <br /> Rajajinagar, Bangalore-10.<br /> <br /> 3.The Assistant Executive Engineer,<br /> No.3, Sub-Division,<br /> BESCOM Ltd., <br /> Basaveswarnagar, Bangalore-79. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.<br /> The complainant is absolute owner in possession of property bearing No.MIG-47, 2nd Stage, KHB Colony, Basaveshwarnagar, Bangalore. He has availed power connection (AEH) to the above said property. There is a transformer near by the complainant’s house, through which the power supply was made for the electrical insulation in the complainant’s house. On account of negligence act and failure to keep the transformer in good condition, the same has been bursted on 31-6-2006, due to which the electrical items in the house were damaged. The complainant informed the matter to the opposite parties by letter dated 31-10-2006. Thereafter the opposite parties officials visited the house. The opposite party official directed the complainant to send the original bills for having replaced the damaged electrical goods. Accordingly the complainant has submitted the same. Thereafter, the complainant made several requests to take immediate action. The opposite parties fail to respond the letters. The complainant got issued legal notice on 16-4-2009. The opposite party has not replied hence, the complaint claiming actual amount spent for replacing the damaging electrical goods amounting to Rs.9,856/- and the complainant has also prayed compensation. The Complainant has claimed Rs.5,000/- compensation and the cost of the present proceedings. <br /> 2. The opposite parties has filed defense version stating that, the complainant had produced different bills which are amounting to Rs.10,418/- The complainant should have replaced the household electrical goods within a span of a day or two. The bill for Rs.3,244/- produced by the complainant dated 6-1-2007, goods are said to be damaged on 31-10-2006. The complainants goods got damaged is a suspicious one. The complainant made efforts to get compensation from the opposite party in respect of electrical goods damaged due to his negligence. The complainant has not produced any other corroborate evidence to prove the deficiency of service. Therefore, the opposite party has prayed to dismiss the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence. On behalf of the opposite party also filed affidavit evidence. The complainant has produced some documents but, the opposite party has not produced any documents. Heard the arguments on both side. The opposite party has submitted written argument. <br /> 4. In the light of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, the following points arise for consideration:-<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> <br /> 2. Whether the complaint is entitled for the amount spent for replacing the damaged electrical goods by way of compensation. <br /> REASONS<br /> 5. The complainant has produced 4 bills to show that he has purchased electrical goods, one bill is for Rs.2,812/- and another bill is for Rs.950/- and one more bill for Rs.3,244/-. The complainant has also claimed some labour charges for fixing the electrical items. In this way he has claimed total amount of Rs.9,856/-. The complainant had sent a letter to the Assistant Executive Engineer on 31-10-2006 itself bring to the notice of the opposite party due to burst of transformer some electrical items has damaged in his house. The complainant sent another letter to opposite party on 4-9-2007 requesting for early payment and in that letter he has given the details of payments made towards purchase of items and labour charges. He has produced the copy of the letters. The complainant made correspondence and sent letters to the opposite parties on 13-5-2008, 11-7-2008, 14-7-2008, 8-9-2008 and 18-11-2008. The complainant is making efforts right from the date of incidents till the date of filing of this complaint to get compensation for loss suffered by him. He has made number of correspondence and sent letters but, unfortunately the opposite parties has not taken positive steps to resolve the issue. The opposite parties have not sent even a single reply to the letters sent by the complainant. Ultimately the complainant has issued legal notice through advocate on 16-4-2009 demanding cost of the damaged items and compensation. The opposite parties even not sent reply to the legal notice. The opposite parties have not produced documentary evidence or report of inspection engineer to show that the transformer which was near the house of the complainant was in order and it had no fault at all. The opposite parties have not produced any documents to establish the fact that the transformer had no fault and on 31-10-2006 same has not been bursted. In the defense version also no specific defense is taken in respect of maintenance of the transformer. The opposite parties has taken only defense in respect of bills produced by the complainant. From the letters and correspondence made by the complainant who is a senior citizen aged 74 years, it can not be said by any stretch of imagination, that the complainant had made false claim and claimed amount for the damaged electrical items. There is nothing on record to say that complainant has put up false claim. The complainant being a senior citizen has made claim based on the facts which had occurred on 31-10-2006. It is duty of the opposite parties to properly maintain the transformer. If there was any negligence on the part of the opposite party in keeping in good condition, the department has to take responsibility for the loss occurred to the consumers. In this case the complainant being a consumer he has suffered loss due to the faulty transformer and electrical items damaged in his house. Therefore, definitely he is entitled for the cost of the goods amounting to Rs.9,856/- by way of compensation. The opposite party shall be directed to pay this amount to the complainant. The Consumer Protection Act is a Social and Benevolent Legislation intended to protect the better interest of the consumers, the complainant here in being a consumer under Consumer Protection Act, his interest and rights are required to be protected in passing orders for payment of cost of the damaged electrical goods as compensation. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.9,856/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order In the event of non compliance of the order the above amount carries interest at 9% p.a from the date of this order till payment / realisation. <br /> 7. The complainant is also entitled for Rs.500/- as cost of the present proceedings from the Opposite Parties. <br /> 8. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 9. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 13TH DAY OF MAY 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br />