State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Punjab State Electricity Board vs J.D. Institute Of Management And ... on 22 September, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1442 of 2005
Date of institution : 8.11.2005
Date of decision : 22 .9.2010
Punjab State Electricity Board through its A.E., Operation, Sub-Division Doda,
Tehsil Gidderbaha and District Muktsar.
.......Appellant
Versus
J.D. Institute of Management and Technology, Bathinda Road, Muktsar through
its Chairman Dr. S.K. Gawri.
......Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 22.7.2005 of
the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Muktsar.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Lt. Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Present :-
For the appellants : Shri P.S. Brar, Advocate. For the respondents : None.
JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The respondent had electric connection for running the J.D. Institute of Management and Technology, Muktsar. It was a reputed Institute where the higher computer study was imparted to the students. The respondent had managed expensive and latest computer equipments for this purpose. The appliances kept by the respondent were run at the scale of 220 KV. Any release of energy more than that could cause damage to the apparatus/instruments which were operational in the respondent Institute.
2. It was further pleaded that on 3.2.2003 at about 11.00 A.M. there was a power fluctuation and a heavy load of energy was released more than specified. Due to this power fluctuation, four processors of computers were damaged out of First Appeal No.1442 of 2005. 2 these computer processors. The mother board Intel 810 of all the four processors was totally damaged the cost of which was about Rs.10,200/-. One Intel Celeron processor amounting to Rs.2,800/- was also damaged. The respondent had lodged a complaint with the appellants but to no effect.
3. It was further pleaded that on 14.3.2003 again the power fluctuation took place at about 10 A.M. by which one UPS amounting to Rs.2,300/- and 24 pieces of tube chokes amounting to Rs.2,400/- were totally damaged. On the same day another power fluctuation had taken place at about 1.00 P.M. which damaged two exhaust fans amounting to Rs.1,000/- and 50 meter wire amounting to Rs.400/-. The complaint was again lodged with the appellants but in vain.
4. It was further pleaded that again on 20.3.2003 a heavy power fluctuation had again taken place which damaged the motor of the monoblock sets and 3 number of C.V.T. costing Rs.3,500/-. The appellants were requested to compensate the respondent but they failed to do so. Hence the complaint for compensation. Costs were also prayed.
5. The appellants filed the written statement. It was denied for want of knowledge if the respondent was an Institute of Management and Technology or if students were imparted computer education in this Institute. It was, however, admitted that the respondent was having electric connection. The appellants are duty bound to provide energy in specified manner upto the place of installation of the meter and after that place of the installation of meter, the respondent himself was duty bound to install protection system to run his electric connection safely.
6. It was denied if the respondent had lodged any complaint with the Complaint Centre of the appellants or if he had sent written complaint to the appellants. It was denied if there was power fluctuation on 3.2.2003. The alleged damage might have been caused due to defect in the wiring for supplying of electricity from the meter onwards. The story of the respondent is based on assumptions, conjectures and surmises. The computers were connected to the UPS and CVT through which the energy passes on to the computers. Therefore First Appeal No.1442 of 2005. 3 the version of the respondent that four processors of the computers and their mother board and one Intel Celeron processor was damaged on 3.2.2003 or if one piece of UPS and 24 pieces of chokes or exhaust fans were damaged on 14.3.2003 or if the motor and three pieces of CVT were damaged on 20.3.2003.
7. It was further pleaded that the electric connection of the respondent was checked by the Executive Engineer (Enforcement-II), PSEB, Muktsar on 12.11.2001. It was found that the respondent was utilizing the load of 53.206 K.W. against the sanctioned load of 32.680 K.W. There was generator also. On the basis of the inspection report dated 12.11.2001 notice dated 22.11.2001 was sent to the respondent for making the payment of Rs.69,250/- for utilizing the connected load in excess of the sanctioned load, cost of the meter and generator fee. The respondent had paid the said amount on 18.12.2002 willingly. After the issuance of demand the connected load of the respondent was regularized but the respondent had not submitted the test report as yet. Moreover the entire protection system such as earth leakage, circuit breaker or the overvoltage relays were to be installed by the consumer at his own costs from the place of installation of the meter onwards. The respondent himself was responsible for energy generated by the generator.
8. It was specifically denied if there was power fluctuation from the transformer of the appellants on 14.3.2003 at 10.00 A.M. or if the power fluctuation had also taken place on 20.3.2003. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
9. The respondent produced documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-8 and also filed the affidavit of Dr. S.K. Gawari respondent as Ex.C-A. He also filed the affidavit of P.N. Jha, Director-Cum-Professor of the respondent Institute as Ex.PB, the affidavit of Avtar Singh, Lab. Instructor as Ex.PC, the affidavit of Malkeet Singh, Electrician as Ex.PD and the affidavit of Anmol Kumar, Sole Proprietor, Computer Empire as Ex.PE.
First Appeal No.1442 of 2005. 4
10. On the other hand, the appellants filed the affidavit of Surinder Paul, Junior Engineer as Ex.OP-6. Banta Singh, Junior Engineer also brought the original record for the period from 11.1.2002 to 30.9.2003 and proved the documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-5.
11. Learned District Forum accepted the complaint with costs of Rs.1,000/- vide impugned order dated 22.7.2005 and the appellants were directed to make the payment of Rs.31,600/- to the respondent.
12. Hence the appeal.
13. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order dated 22.7.2005 be set aside.
14. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
15. The appellants produced the entries from the Complaint Register dated 3.2.2003 as Ex.OP-1. No such complaint was lodged by the respondent with the appellants in the complaint register if there was power fluctuation to the electric connection of the respondent. The appellants also produced the copy of the entries in the complaint register for 14.3.2003 as Ex.OP-2. There is no such complaint on that date also. The appellants also produced the entries from the complaint register dated 20.3.2003 Ex.OP-3 in which also there is no such complaint lodged by the respondent with the appellants if there was power fluctuation in the electric connection of the respondent.
16. The respondent has also not produced on the file any document to show if he had lodged any complaint with the appellants regarding alleged power fluctuation on 3.2.2003, 14.3.2003 and 20.3.2003. If there had been any such fluctuation, the respondent certainly would have lodged the complaint either in the complaint register or he would have sent the written complaint to the appellants. No such document has been proved by the respondent.
17. The appellants have pleaded that they were liable if there was any fluctuation upto the electric meter installation but it is the responsibility of the consumer to ensure smooth flow of electricity from the electric meter to the First Appeal No.1442 of 2005. 5 premises. The respondent has also not produced any document to show if there was any power fluctuation from the transformer upto the electric of the respondent.
18. The respondent has only proved the damage caused to the processors or to some other computer articles but there is no documentary evidence to prove if this damage caused to these computer items was because of any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the appellants.
19. The respondent has filed affidavits as Ex.PA and Ex.PB according to which the damage was caused by the power fluctuation in the electricity but that is not enough to prove deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. The respondent being interested could depose anything in the affidavit but when the respondent had not lodged any complaint with the appellants regarding the alleged power fluctuation, the affidavits alone cannot be made the basis of awarding compensation to the respondent.
20. On the other hand, the appellants have proved that checking was made of the electric connection of the respondent bearing account No.DG46/34 on 12.11.2001 (Ex.OP-4) and that the appellants had demanded an amount of Rs.69,200/- from the respondent vide demand notice dated 12.11.2001 (Ex.OP5). It is also proved that this amount was deposited by the respondent on 18.12.2002. Therefore this could be the motive for the respondent to allege power fluctuation and claim an amount of Rs.31,600/- on account of alleged damage.
21. Learned District Forum has gone wrong in not properly appreciating the evidence.
22. In view of the discussion held above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned order dated 22.7.2005 is set aside.
23. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs.16,300/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal on 8.11.2005. This amount of Rs.16,300/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the appellants by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. First Appeal No.1442 of 2005. 6
24. The arguments in this case were heard on 8.9.2010 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
25. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH [RETD.])
MEMBER
September 22 , 2010 (MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
Bansal MEMBER