ASSISTANT ENGINEER (Urban), Tamil Nadu Electricity Board vs APPAVOO THEVAR

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 23rd day of December, 1997 in O.P. No. 98/97 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Tirunelveli. The appellants are the opposite parties while the respondents 1 to 3 are individual complainants and respondent No. 4 is Tirunelveli District Consumer Protection Association.

THE complainants 1 to 3 are the residents of Sivanthipatti village near Palayamkottai. On 16.3.1997 at about 10.45 a.m. there was surge voltage in the electric lines through which the complainants 1 to 3 were getting electricity supply to their houses. Owing to such surge voltage, the colour T.V. sets, fans, jet motor were stated to have been damaged. As a consequence, they were stated to have suffered loss as per the particulars furnished in paragraph 2 of the complaint. The 1st complainant preferred a complaint dated 17.3.1997 to the 1st opposite party who is the Assistant Engineer of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Maharaja Nagar, Tirunelveli in respect of the damage caused to the television set, fans, etc. in his house due to surge voltage. The President of the Panchayat, Union of Sivanthipatti village also preferred a complaint to the District Collector, Tirunelveli. When the damage caused to the electric equipment in the houses of complainants 1 to 3 due to the surge voltage was informed to the Village Administrative Officer, he also inspected their premises and noted the damages said to have been caused to the electrical equipments.

The 2nd opposite party is the Superintending Engineer, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Tiruneleveli. Only after preferring the above complaints to the opposite parties, the concerned lineman of the Department came and rectified the defects in the electric line.

ON 26.3.1997 the complainants 1 to 3 sent a letter to the 1st opposite party by registered post and to the 2nd opposite party by Certificate of Posting, claiming compensation in respect of the damage caused to the electrical equipments in their houses. The 1st opposite party received the letter dated 26.3.1997 sent by them. On 29.3.1997 some officials of the Electricity Board came and were stated to have inspected their premises and noted the damage caused to their electrical equipments. After that no response was shown by the opposite parties to compensate them.

THEY again sent a registered letter dated 24.4.1997 to the 1st opposite party and to the 2nd opposite party by Certificate of Posting calling upon them to compensate the loss suffered by them. The opposite parties failed to show any response even to those letters. It is the duty of the opposite parties to supply the correct voltage of electricity to the consumers. But they failed to regulate the supply and the said act of the opposite parties amounts to gross deficiency in service. The complainants 1 to 3 have suffered loss due to the damage caused to their electrical equipments and also suffered mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency in service committed by the opposite parties.

THE complainants estimated a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each as compensation in respect of mental agony and hardship suffered by them. THEy have come forward with a complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 26,000/- to the 1st complainant, Rs. 16,000/- to the 2nd complainant and Rs. 30,000/- to the 3nd complainant and also cost of the complaint.

THE opposite parties filed written version reflecting as below : To say that on 16.3.1997 at about 10.45 a.m. there was supply of electricity at high voltage due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties, is not correct. In fact there is no chance for electric supply at higher voltage than the prescribed one. THEre are many safety devices to avoid supply of electricity energy at higher voltage. The supply of electricity to Sivanthipatti village is being made from Srivaikuntam Sub-station. The prescribed voltage only will be supplied from Srivaikuntam and absolutely there is no chance for supply of electric energy at higher voltage. If for any reason there was supply of electric energy at higher voltage than the prescribed limit, the supply at Srivaikuntam would have been isolated by the tripping mechanism which has been provided in the kiosk. The reading at Srivaikuntam on that date did not indicate any such thing. Apart from that, the transformer at Sivanthipatti converts the 11 K.V. supply to 433 volts between phases and 240 volts between phase and neutral so that the supply can be utilised for the domestic purposes. Sufficient devices have been provided in the transformer so that in case of any fault in the line it will automatically blow off.

The electric supply before reaching the main at the house, it has to cross the aerial fuse, energy meter and cut out fuse. In case of any increase in the voltage, the meter will be burnt or damaged. But in this case the electric meters in the houses of the complainants 1 to 3 are intact. From the said fact it is quite clear that there was no supply of electric energy at a higher voltage.

THE complaint of line fault (L.T. Line cut) was rectified by the Board employees. THE opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service. THErefore the complaint has to be dismissed with costs of the opposite parties. The complainants have filed proof affidavit and marked Exs. A1 to A10 apart from filing an affidavit from one Mr. K.G. Sankaranarayanan, a qualified Engineer who is working as a Tutor in Cathedral Higher Secondary School, Palayamkottai.

THE opposite parties, on the other hand, have also filed proof affidavit, but they have not marked any document. THEy however sought permission to put questions in cross examination to the said Mr. K.G. Sankaranarayanan and the permission sought for was granted by the Forum below and the said Engineer was cross examined by the opposite parties. The Forum below, after taking into consideration the relevant materials placed on record and after hearing the various projection of hues of views of the parties through their respective learned Counsel, ultimately came to the conclusion that there was definitely deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and ultimately it allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties to pay compensation to the complainants 1 to 3 in a sum of Rs. 8,000/-, Rs. 4,000/- and 10,000/- respectively with cost of Rs. 500/- to each of the complainants. It further ordered that the above said amounts shall be paid within one month from the date of its order. The complaint in other respects was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order as above, the appellants/opposite parties resorted to the present action.

ARGUMENTS of learned Counsel Mr. V. Dhanasekar, appearing for the appellants/opposite parties and learned Counsel Mr. C.S.S. Pillai, representing the respondents/complainants were heard.

EVEN at the outset we may point out that there are absolutely nothing to interfere with the order of the Forum below inasmuch as the said order does not suffer any sort of infirmity in the appreciation of the relevant materials placed on record. The gravamen of accusations in the complaint was that on the date in question there was flow of high voltage in the electricity lines and as a consequence of which the electrical equipments belonging to the complainants 1 to 3 got damaged. The opposite parties would of course say that there was no chance for any higher voltage passing along the line on the date in question. The moot question, in such circumstances, that arises for consideration is as to whether there was any sort of higher voltage passing along the electrical line and consequently the electrical equipments belonging to the complainants 1 to 3 were damaged making them sustain loss as a consequence of such damage. The claim of the 2nd opposite party is that if there is any passing of higher voltage over the overhead lines on the date in question, the same would have been noticed at the Srivaikuntam Sub-station and recordings would have been there, and since there was no recording of passing of higher voltage in the sub-station, it cannot be said, according to them, that there was higher voltage passing along the lines. This sort of an assertion is nothing but an assertion for assertion sake without placing on record any documents from the sub-station. This apart, they would claim that the electric meters unstalled in the houses of the complainants 1 to 3 were intact and if in fact there was any higher voltage getting into the houses of the complainants 1 to 3 there is every possibility of the electric meters getting burnt or damaged and such a thing did not happen. From that they would come to a conclusion that there would not have been any higher voltage passing through the electric lines on the date in question.

Normally the fuse wires in the meters will be low pressure tension wires. If higher voltage current passes through the meters, the electricity connection to the respective houses would get snapped by the operation of the fusing system. The fact that the fuse wires did not get snapped and the electricity passed to the individual houses of complainants 1 to 3 is a factor to be taken into account and in such a situation the fuse wires put up in such meters must be high pressure tension wires and that perhaps was the reason the fuse system was not operating on the date in question enabling the higher voltage current pass through the meters of the respective houses of the complainants 1 to 3. Therefore the fact that the meters were in tact is not in any way going to rescue the opposite parties from any liability being mulcted upon them.

IT is also a definite fact that the live wires, say, low tension wire cut was there on the date in question and such sort of a line cut, according to the opposite parties was rectified by the employees of the Board. IT is at this juncture we have to take into account the evidence of the third party qualified Engineer Mr. K.G. Sankaranarayanan. In a bid to escape from their liability the opposite parties hurled a question in cross examination as a random shot to the effect that only in cases of three phase lines the fault in the line would cause passing of higher voltage and not in the case of single phase lines. To the question so hurled on this aspect of the matter, the said Engineer would, of course, submit that in the case of single phase lines there was no possibility of any higher voltage passing through the lines. From this, the admission of such an answer, we rather feel on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not to lend a helping hand to the opposite parties. There is no tangible material in the shape of any evidence oral or documentary to point out that the lines in question were three phase lines or single phase lines. Such a factor will lie within the special knowledge of the opposite parties. IT is for them to make it appear or prove that the lines in question were single phase lines. The burden of proof of such a special knowledge cast on them had not been discharged in accordance with the salient provisions adumberated under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In such state of affairs, there is absolutely no material to point out that the lines in questions were single phase ones. For the reasons above, we are of the view that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

THE Forum below awarded damages to the complainants 1 to 3 respectively Rs. 8,000/-, Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- as against their respective claims of Rs. 26,000/-, Rs. 16,000/- and Rs. 30,000/-. THE reason for the reduction of the amounts for the damages, by the Forum below is that the complainants had not placed documentary evidence to prove the actual loss caused to them as a consequence of the damage caused to the electric equipments installed in their respective houses. In such circumstances, the Forum below was compelled to insist on evaluation of the damage caused to the electric equipments by a reasonable assessment taking into account the totality of the circumstances. THE assessment so made by the Forum below, we rather feel, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, is not on the high side calling for any interference. This apart, the Forum below also awarded costs of Rs. 500/- to each of the complainants 1 to 3 which, we feel, is quite reasonable not warranting any interference. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. In fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed, but we make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Appeal dismissed.