Carelessness of Electricity board and consumer protection Act.

 

Carelessness of Electricity Board & Consumer protection Act

 

Managing Director-Cum-Chairman A. P. Transco, Hyderabad

Telangana and others v. Mohd.Noorullha Shareef and others.

2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 838.

 

Facts: The Complainant alleges that he along with his brother was coming

from the mosque when one snapped electrical wire was hanging from the

electric pole and the brother of Complainant Mohd. Habeebullah Shareef

came into contact with that live wire and was electrocuted. The Complainants informed the Opposite Parties A. P. Transco and post-mortem was also conducted, wherein the cause of death was found to be electrocution. The Complainants then filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission alleging deficiency against the opposite parties.

The complaint was resisted by the Opposite Parties mainly on the ground

that the Complainants were not consumers as no services have been offered

by the Opposite Parties on consideration to the Complainants. It was stated

that because of storm that occurred previous night, one tree fell on the electric lines, thus the wire was hanging and as per their rules, the Opposite Parties have already paid a sum as compensation. Thus, the incident happened because of a natural calamity and no negligence can be imputed to the Opposite Parties.

The State Commission partly allowed the complaint. Both the Complainants

and the Opposite Parties filed an appeal against the State Commission’s order.

Both the appeals were heard together by the National Commission.

Issue: Whether the complainants are consumers & whether there is a

deficiency in service by OP?

Decision: The Opposite Parties contended that the complaint of deficiency

of service cannot be maintained as there was no contract between the

Complainants and them. The National Commission looked into certain cases

decided by the Supreme Court and saw that the Complainant, in such

conditions, is impliedly considered to be a consumer. Moreover, the strict

liability principle makes it a must for the Opposite Parties to pay compensation in such cases. But the National Commission did not find merit in the arguments of the Complainants that the amount of compensation should be increased.

Thus, the National Commission partly allowed the appeal filed by OP and

modified the amount to be paid from Rs. 18,00,000/- to Rs. 12,00,000/-.

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. v. Mukesh Kumar

Satnami 2 Ors

 Revision Petition No. 2225 /2017 (NCDRC).

Facts: A regular domestic electric connection was given to the house of

Firtu Ram Lahre in village Kenapali against BP Number 1003531960 by the

Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Petitioner). Rukhmani Bai

wife of Mukesh Satnami is a consumer of the said electricity. The Respondent had registered the complaint dated 18.05.2015 stated that the neutral wire transmitted by the Petitioner to their house had been broken. He duly informed the department of this fact. The electricity department however,did not pay any heed to his complaint. On 19.05.2015, wife of Firtu Ram Lahre switched on the cooler at about 12.00 noon and due to the electric current flowing through it she got electrocuted due to the electric current which was leaking in the cooler which was due to the snapping of the neutral wire she become unconscious and was immediately taken to the hospital but she was declared brought dead in the hospital. A police complaint was lodged with PS Kharsia and the post mortem report was also got done. In the post mortem report the cause of the death was death due to electric current. The husband and her children has alleged that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner and claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,77,000/- along with litigation expenses before the District Forum.

The District Forum Allowed the complaint rejecting the contention of the

Petitioner that Respondents have never informed about the breaking of the

neutral wire to the department and the documents to this effect was forged

and fabricated and directing the Petitioner to pay amount of Rs. 5,58,000/-

on account of compensation due to deficiency in service to the Complainant

within a period of 30 days; interest at the rate of 9% per annum with effect

from the date of institution of Complainant and Rs. 2000/- to the Complainant

within a period of one month. Aggrieved by the decision of the District

forum the petitioner appealed before the State Commission. The state

Commission dismissed the appeal on 01.03.2017 and held that there was a

deficiency in service. Hence, the present revision petition has been filed

against the judgment dated 01.03.2017 of the Chhattisgarh State Consumer

Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur.

Issue: 1. Whether there is any Deficiency in Service?

2. Whether there was any illegal, infirmity or jurisdictional error and

miscarriage of justice is caused to the petitioner?

Decision: The revision petition filed before the National Commission is

devoid of the merits, and hereby dismissed the petition as the consumer had

duly informed the Petitioner about the snapping of the neutral wire and the

current flowing in the domestic appliances including cooler. Even rule 5.5

cast duty upon the licensor department to do repairs and no other person is

permitted to carry out any repair. Rule 5.6 states that the department shall

ensure continuity of the supply of electrical energy to the consumer.