GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD vs SHARDA MADHUSUDAN DESAI

THE respondent/complainant has filed a complaint alleging that on March 12,1991 at 7.30 P.M. when she reached her home she found both the tube lights of the street adjacent to her house were not working. When she opened the house she smelt something burning and on making enquiry she found that her Keltron voltage stabiliser had burnt and was giving the smell. When she switched on the 5 tube lights of her house same were fused. Four ordinary light bulbs were also fused and one choke of the tube light was also out of order. When she switched on the T.V. she found some smell coming out from the T.V. also. So she put off the main switch and made phone call to the local engineer of the G.E.B. But nobody came to her house on that day. On the next day some persons from the G.E.B. came and made an investigation and found that there was a defect in the metter and they called the wireman to check the wiring. THE wireman stated that the wire fitting was O.K. but on account of excess voltage the tube lights, bulbs etc. were burnt. According to the complainant all these items have been burnt/fused on account of excess voltage. She has, therefore, claimed the value of tubes, chokes, bulbs, cost of stabiliser and Rs. 135/- towards reparation charges of T.V. totalling to Rs. 663.10. It also appears that the complainant was cross- examined by the advocate of the Board but could not extract any facts in favour of the Board. THE complainant had also produced the bills for the purchase of the articles.

AFTER considering the evidence on record the District Forum came to the conclusion that such an extensive damage to tubelights, bulbs, stabiliser etc. can occur on account of excess voltage in the supply of electricity and this amounts to deficiency in service. The District Forum there- fore awarded Rs. 663.10 the value of the articles and Rs. 50/- by way of cost. The Board is relying upon the affidavit of one Mr. Mustafa Abdul Sattar, Dy. Engineer of G.E.B. He has stated that the supply has been given to other persons also from the same post but they have not made any complaint. They have received the complaint of the complainant on 12.3.91 regarding stoppage of electricity. According to his opinion there was a possibility of defect in the stabiliser of the complainant and if two wires are externally joined such things might happen. We have considered the affidavit of Mr. Mustafa Abdul Sattar but the deponent has not stated that if high voltage is supplied this cannot happen. He has doubted the stabiliser. But when the stabiliser was also fused he has stated that if two wires externally come together this might happen. We are not impressed by his affidavit or his line of argument.

The stabiliser might be connected with the T.V. or any other instrument but so far the light installation is concerned it is not the case of the appellant opponent that the main lighting connection was also joined with the stabiliser. In the instant case the stabiliser has also been burnt which generally protects some fluctuation. But the voltage was too high to be adjusted by the stabiliser. The main electricity light installation have been burnt simultaneously is not disputed and the most probable reason is the excess voltage given to this installation. We do not find any error committed by the learned District Forum. On the contrary we are also of the same opinion that the complainant has suffered these damages on account of excess voltage. The District Forum has not awarded any amount for inconvenience, pain and suffering. He has passed the decree for a very small amount. However, there being no cross appeal we do not think it proper to award any amount for inconvenience, pain and suffering. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The order of the District Forum is confirmed. The appellant will bear the cost of the respondent which we quantify at Rs. 150/-. Appeal dismissed with costs. _____________