MAYA C.S. vs CHAIRMAN, K.S.E. BOARD

THE complainant in O.P. No. 796/94 has filed this appeal questioning the correctness of the order of the District Forum, Thiruvananthapuram, dated 18.8.1997 dismissing the complaint.

THE complainant''s case is that on 4.5.1994 the High Tension 66 KV Electric line snapped and fell on the Low Tension line near her house which caused extensive damage to her electrical equipments, such as, mixy, T.V. set, fans etc. THE energy meter and the service wire were burnt off. Moreover the complainant''s 2 months'' old baby whom she was feeding fell down on the floor by the severe shock and sustained injuries. THE child had to be immediately admitted in the S.A.T, Hospital and had to be treated spending more than Rs. 4,000/-. Towards damages of electrical items and including money spent for treatment she filed the complaint claiming Rs. 75,000/- as compensation, as the legal notice served on the opposite parties had not positive result. On behalf of the opposite parties, namely, the Chairman, Chief Engineer and the Executive Engineer of the Kerala State Electricity Board, the fourth opposite party, namely, the Assistant Engineer, Kulathoor filed version denying liability. They admitted that at about 6.30 a.m. on 4.5.1994 one conductor line of the Paruthippara- Terls 66 KV Extra High Tension feeder snapped and fell on the Low Tension Single Phase line near the complainant''s house.The service wire and the metering equipments of some of the consumers in the area were burnt off. The opposite parties have rectified and replaced these at the Board''s cost. The complainant''s house was also inspected and the energy meter and service wire were replaced and supply restored. On inspection it was found that the internal wiring was intact and the mixy, T.V. set, fans etc. were functioning properly. The child was also seen in good health. The alleged damage was not due to any negligence and the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation and the complaint may be dismissed.

The District Forum examined PW 1 and PW 2 and marked Exts. P1 to P9 for the complainant. DW 1 was examined for the opposite parties and after examining the whole case the complaint was dismissed.

BEING aggrieved by the above order the complainant has come in appeal. It was argued before us that the Forum went wrong in dismissing the complaint. Exts. P1 to P6 which establish the treatment of the child has been misappreciated by the District Forum. Ext. P1 news paper report dated 6.5.1994 which says about the incident will show that the baby was hurt and had to be hospitalised. The news paper also speaks of the extensive damage caused by the snapping of the high tension line in the locality including the house of the complainant. Donation coupon of the S.A.T. Hospital and the bills for purchase of different electrical items produced as Exts. P7 to P9 will show the amount spent for treatment and repairing the electrical items. It was contended for the appellant that there is provision for overguarding facility of Low Tension lines and underguarding for Extra High Tension lines and this was not provided by the opposite parties, but for which the damage would not have happened.

ON an examination of the rules we observed that such guardings are not imperative and giving sufficient clearance need be given between the lines. If that is so, no negligence can be fastened on the opposite parties as the complainant has no case that sufficient clearance was not given between the lines. Snapping of high tension line is a very rare occurrence. If due to overflow of current to the complainant''s house as in a case like this some mishap happens it is difficult to term it as deficiency of service attracting the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. We are supported in our view by the decision of the National Commission reported in 1997 (1) CPR 20, Sreemathy Ganga Devi v. Haryana Electricity Board. Of course the incident is an unfortunate accident and may be the opposite parties can be proceeded against in tort for damages in a regular civil suit. In the circumstances, we dismiss the appeal, however, without costs. This will not preclude the complainant from seeking any other remedy available to her. Appeal dismissed.