RAJENDRA KUMAR TRIPATHI vs UTTAR PRADESH STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, where he had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties.

VERY briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had three electric connections from the respondent/opposite party which carried a voltage of 220 volts. It is the case of the complainant / appellant that on 10.11.1995 a High Tension wire (HT wire) carrying current of 11000 volts fell and came into contact with the service cable resulting in damage to the concealed wiring, service cable, telephone and other equipments, electrical gadgets in his house. Since it was Sunday all the family members were at home. Falling of high voltage wire on the service cable resulted in catching fire. The matter was reported to the respondent. Sub-Engineers and others have visited the spot and filed the report which is on record and when the complainant approached the Superintendent Engineer of the respondent he was maltreated and he refused to come. It was the case of the complainant that because of the HT wire coming into the contact with the service cable the loss was caused to the internal concealed wiring, colour TV, B & W TV, VCR, refrigerator, spike buster, automatic voltage stabilisers, etc. the cost of which was assessed at Rs. 1,75,000 by the Tehsildar on instructions from the District Collector of Kanpur City. It is in these circumstances that a complaint was filed before the State Commission praying for damages caused to the property amounting to Rs. 1,75,000 as also Rs. 8,00,000 on account of physical and mental damages caused to the members of the family. The matter was contested by the respondent. The State after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that as per material brought on record by the respondent, the High Tension Line did fall but according to them it was not of 11,000 Volts, but only of 6600 Volts. In the written version they have taken a specific plea (para 6), ".......how the heavy current line fell into the service cable is still a matter of mystery...?" We have seen on record a report of one S.K. Trivedi, who is Assistant Engineer of the respondent which translated in English reads as follows : "Today dated 10.11.1991 at about 3.15 p.m. M-25 HT Line which was passing in front of the house fell on the road after snapping and came into contact with ...... line of the earth cable, resulting in burning out of the insulator as well as damaging the three meters and upon inquiry found most of the internal wiring having been also burnt."

This report was given by Mr. Trivedi after visiting the house of the complainant. This demolishes the case of the respondent / opposite party that the HT Line had a guard-line, and when the HT Line came into contact with LT Line, it resulted in its automatic switching off. This is the main defence of the respondent and second leg of the defence is that the matter should have been reported to the Electric Inspector by the complainant. The report of the Assistant Engineer, i.e., only officer of the respondent who visited the spot leaves us with no doubt that on account of snapping of HT wire the internal wiring or line burnt within the house of the appellant/complainant. It is another matter that for reasons best known to them, the respondents did not go into the ''loss'' caused to the equipment dependent on and connected to the energy from these wires. Since no action was being taken by the respondent, the complainant approached the District Collector with a complaint who asked the ''Tehsildar'' concerned to assess the loss and wrote a Demi-official letter to one Shri M.M. Sharma, General Manager of respondent, Kanpur Electricity Supply, Kanpur City on 21.11.95 enclosing the copy of the report of the damage assessed by the Tehsildar amounting to Rs. 1,75,000 . Our repeated query to the learned Counsel for the respondent did not bring out any response as to what action was taken by the respondent on a reference from the District Collector, i.e., the highest civil authority in the District/City? In the written version as also in the arguments before us the receipt of the letter is not denied. To the contrary, statement in the written version as also argument before us, the plea of the respondents is that the ''District Magistrate or Tehsildar is not empowered to conduct the inquiry into the matter of electric accidents as they are not expert. The matter should have been referred to the Electricity Inspector under provisions of Electricity Act/ Rules. There cannot be any dispute that the Collector and the Tehsildar are not qualified to comment on the disruption in electricity or the reasons for snapping of electricity H.T. Line but it needs to be appreciated that the only Civil Authority in any District or City is the Collector, who invariably assesses the loss to property or belongings, in cases of a natural or a man made calamity which is usually assessed by Tehsildar. In these circumstances, the report of the Collector cannot be brushed aside lightly. We are also unable to appreciate that once the respondents had come to know, as per records, of the snapping of HT wire coming into contact with the LT wire and more so when the Collector of the City has made reference to the respondent, what prevented them from referring the matter to the Electricity Inspector under appropriate provision of law? Non-reference of the matter to the Electricity Inspector is reflective of the failure on the part of the respondent to take the matter seriously. They did not carry out any assessment of loss as reported by the complainant to the respondent. It cannot be any one''s case that if there is certain heavy fluctuation on higher side, resulting for such HT Line coming into contact with LT Line, even for a short period, it would not result in damaging the various equipment, accessories and other electronic gadgets in the house. Since in this case the District Collector has assessed the loss at Rs. 1,75,000, we have no ground whatsoever not to accept this figure as this is not rebutted in any manner, because no independent inquiry of the loss at the house of the complainant was made by the respondent. Admittedly, as per report of the AE of the respondent, the wiring within the house of the appellant was also burnt, in view of which we are unable to appreciate the order of the State Commission when they doubt that any damage could be caused when the HT Line touches the LT Line for a few seconds. The existence of guarding system to prevent the HT Line in case of such ''accident-snapping'' coming into the contact with LT Line does not help the respondent in such case as admittedly the HT Line did come into the contact with LT Line burning out the wires within the house of the appellant as noticed by the AE of the respondents.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission, which is set aside and complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,75,000 as assessed by the Collector of Kanpur City to the appellant/complainant along with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of payment. The respondent is also entitled for cost which we fix at Rs. 5,000 . All the above payments shall be made within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the appellant shall be at liberty to proceed against the respondent under Sections 25/27 of the CPA, 1986. The Appeal stands disposed of in above terms. Appeal disposed of.