RAJENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI vs CHAIRMAN,U.P.STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

THE complainant has prayed for a sum of Rs. 9,75,000/- as damages on account of high voltage running in its circuit installed in his residence.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant has three electric connections of 220 Volts in house No. 4/214, which was obtained in the year 1977. THEreafter, Kanpur Electric Supply Administration, just above the line, supplied electricity to the complainant lined another high tension wire which is still in existence. This line is of 11000 Volts but no security measures were taken to save the electric line of 220 Volts. On 10.11.1995 the complainant''s house received 11000 Volts instead of 220 Volts resulting into damage to service cable, telephone line and the entire household wiring and causing fire. On account of this fire a loss of Rs. 1,75,000/- was caused on account of complete damage to concealed wiring of the entire house, colour television, black and white television, VCR, current control systen, spike buster, two automatic voltage stabilizers, tape deck, refrigerator, automatic press, six main switches, nine ceiling fans, two table fans, twenty tube-lights etc. This has also caused physical damage and mental agony to the complainant as well as his family members for which a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- has been claimed. The complainant also lodged an FIR of this incidence.

The opposite party in its written version has alleged that the facts stated by the complainant are not admitted. According to the opposite parties, no line of 11000 Volts was in existence at the time of alleged incidence as it was installed only two years before filing of this written statement. There was only a line of 6600 Volts which was laid in the year 1986 for giving supply to the Sewage Pumping Station, Nawabganj, Kanpur Vikas Parishad/Pradhikaran. The opposite parties followed each and every security measures while laying high tension lines, in laying and constructing the high tension lines, all rules and procedures were followed. It is further alleged that under the guarding system the high tension line consisting of 3 wires installed at the top, followed by a bracket which is covered at the end of insulators. The high tension wire run on these insulators. This bracket is further supported by the long bracket which is larger as compared to the fittings above it. On both the end of this larger bracket earth wires are attached in such a manner that from one pole to the another they run parallel to each other below the high tension line covering the larger area than the high tension line and in such a manner that if the high tension line falls, it will fall in the area lying between these two wires. These two earth wires are connected with each other with earth iron bars at a particular distance in such a manner that if the high tension line falls it will fall on these cross bars of the earth iron rod. Thus all procedure was followed at the time of construction of this line. Thus in view of the security measures taken by the opposite parties, it is not possible that the high tension wire will fall on the 220 Volts line. It is further alleged that opposite parties are not aware of the manner in which the alleged incidence took place and how heavy current fell into the service cable of the complainant. It is further alleged that after the report that there was a fire on the pole, when the staff went to cut-off the switch, the operator found that the switch was automatically tripped. It was due to safety measures adopted by the opposite parties. It is like this that when the high tension line touched the earth wire or the net connected to cradil guarding system, the switch installed in the Sub Station (from where the power flows), gets tripped and supply is stopped.

IT is further alleged that it is a rare incidence and does not amount to any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Electricity Department, opposite parties. The parties filed their evidence in support of their respective contentions. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

LEARNED Counsel for the opposite parties has argued that there is no deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party as it is a rare incidence and if any loss has been sustained by the complainant, it is not due to negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the case of Maya, C.S. v. Chairman, Kerala State Electricity Board & Ors., II (1998) CPJ 378. In this case the facts were practically the same and it was held by the District Forum that the snapping of the high tension wire is a very rare occurrence. If due to over-flow of current to the complainant''s house some mishap happens, it is difficult to term it as deficiency in services attracting the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. Thus in view of this case law, we find that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As seen in the earlier part of the judgment, the detailed procedure which is adopted by the opposite parties, while laying high tension wire, has been described. In such a situation it becomes very difficult and it is really a rare occasion that a high tension wire, after tripping, will touch a 220 Volts line. The guarding system is such that if high tension line falls on the guarding system, the automatic circuit brackets will take care of it and will stop immediately thus saving any damage. But if by chance the high tension wire touches the low tension wire, it will only be for a few seconds and not for a sufficiently long time as has been described by the complainant. It may be due to some unforeseen circumstances that the high tension wire tripped and fell on low tension wire. On these facts the complainant has failed to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed. The complaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. Order The complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Complaint dismissed.