KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD vs H.S.SITARAM

IN this appeal, the short point for consideration is whether the order passed by the District Forum is sustainable.

THE case of the complainant is that on 5.6.1994, at about 3.10 p.m. when he was watching TV, there was a sudden rattle and thud in the TV followed by complete failure of image and sound. It so transpired that the TVs of the neighbours also packed-up simultaneously which was attributed to a sudden surge in power supply to the locality. When the complainant approached the opposite party - KEB to reimburse the cost of repair and give compensation, he was informed that since the high voltage was on account of a tree falling on 3 phase - 4 phase wire system, it was purely a case of accident for which the Board cannot shoulder any responsibility. THE complainant, therefore, approached the District Forum for the redressal of his grievance. Before the District Forum the opposite party filed its version but no affidavit was filed in support, despite giving enough opportunities. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and has also addressed his argument.

The District Forum, on the basis of the materials placed on record, has come to the conclusion that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and has, therefore, ordered payment of the sum specified in its impugned order to the complainant. Hence, the instant appeal by the opposite party.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, who contended that falling of a tree on the phase wire is an accidental occurrence on which the opposite party - KEB has no control and, therefore, if it has resulted in damage to consumer durables of the complainant residing in the locality, he has no cause of action to brand the KEB as deficient in service. He also contended that under Regulation 22 of the Karnataka Electricity Supply Regulations, 1988, the Board has no liability for any claims of loss or damage arising out of failure or variation in supply. The learned Counsel also invited our attention to a decision of this Commission, in Appeal No. 689/1997 decided on 4.5.1999, in which, according to him, an identical matter has been dealt with and decided in favour of the opposite party - KEB. In the context of the submissions made by the learned Counsel, the crucial point coming in for consideration is whether, as in the case of a vismajor, the falling of a tree on the line absolves the opposite party of all the responsibilities arising out of the damages caused to the property of the complainant. What is required to be analysed in this context is whether a duty is cast on the KEB to prevent such occurrence or whether the KEB is absolutely helpless in the matter as in the case of a hurricane or tornado which uproots the trees and causes high voltage surge and total power failure. In this connection it is relevant to refer to Sub-rule (1) of Rules 29 and 30 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, which reads as follows : "29. Construction, installation, protection, operation and maintenance of electric supply lines and apparatus- (1) All electric supply lines and apparatus shall be of sufficient ratings for powers, insulation and estimated fault current and of sufficient mechanical strength, for the duty which they may be required to perform under the environmental conditions of installation, and shall be constructed, installed, protected, worked and maintained in such a manner as to ensure safety of human beings, animals and property."

(Emphasis supplied) "30. Service lines and apparatus on consumer premises : (1) The supplier shall ensure that all electric supply lines, wires, fittings, and apparatus belonging to him or under his control which are on the consumer''s premises are in a safe condition and in all respects fit for supplying energy, and the supplier shall take due precautions to avoid damages arising on such premises from such supply lines, wires, fittings and apparatus."

IT is specific from Rule 29(1) that a duty is cast on the supplier of electricity to protect supply line of the consumer, presumably from any source which may hamper, fluctuate or cut-off power supply. Tree branches crowding the power line is a constant source of hazard which requires constant trimming to avoid any mishap. Precariously outgrowing trees are also a constant source of damages which are to be identified and neutralised, without which there will be no protection to the power lines. The rule envisages that all such damages to the power lines are to be anticipated and removed timely, so as to ensure safety of not only human beings and animals but also safety of property. The property mentioned in this Rule includes consumer durables like T.V. Refrigerator, washing machine etc., which require steady source of power supply to function. Such durables are damaged when there is a surge in voltage which may occur when an extraneous object comes into contract with the power lines. IT is such an occurrence which is sought to be avoided by this Rule by casting a responsibility on the supplier to protect the line and apparatus against any possible damage from external agents. Rule 30(1) in particular enjoins a duty on the supplier to identify any source of danger to the installation in the premises of the consumer and take necessary action to prevent mishap to the wires and supply lines. These are general safety requirements as the very chapter-heading indicates and the supplier is duty-bound to ensure it in the interest of safety to life and property. From the material placed on record it is seen that there is practically no reference to a tree falling on the electric lines, except in the version filed by the opposite party. There is no reference to it even in the press-cuttings produced by the complainant. Only the opposite party has come up with such a contention which has not been supported by any affidavit evidence. By failing to produce such evidence, the opposite party has also deprived the complainant of an opportunity to cross-examine the opposite party. We are, therefore, unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contentions of the opposite party that the sudden voltage surge was on account of a tree falling on the line over which the opposite party had no apparent control. Moreover, from the provisions of the Indian Electricity Rules reproduced above, it is evident that even if the mishap had really occurred on account of a tree-fall, it was up to the opposite party to ensure safety measures to protect the line and apparatus of the consumers. We are not inclined to accept the contention of the opposite party that it had no control over such accidental occurrences. We are also not satisfied with the argument that the case of a crow falling on the line, resulting in voltage fluctuation, which was dealt with in Appeal No. 689 of 1997 is identical with the present case in terms of causa causana and, therefore, no deficiency in service is attributable to the opposite party.

IN the circumstances, we find from acceptable evidence, definite shortcoming and inadequacy in the manner of performance of the opposite party which is required to be ensured under the INdian Electricity Rules in order to protect the property of the complainant. It is, therefore, to be held that the opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service and consequently we are not in a position to take a view different from the one taken by the District Forum, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

IN the result, the appeal is dismissed. We make no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal dismissed.