NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (COMMITTEE) vs SH.S.P.SINGHA

THIS appeal has been filed by New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC) against the order of the District Forum dated 2.3.90/ 14.3.90. by which the claim of the complainant was allowed and the NDMC was directed to pay Rs. 900/- to the complainant within one month from the date of the order.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant was residing in a government accommo- dation bearing no. D-l-96 situated on Satya Marg, Chankya Puri, New Delhi. On 25.3.89 at about 4.50 p.m. there was a sudden increase in the voltage of electricity on account of which the complainant''s National VCR Model G-33 had been damaged. The said VCR had been imported from USA. The complainant informed the Chankya Puri CPWD Office. One Mr. Satish Kumar came and informed that the high voltage could be possible due to double phase supply of electricity by NDMC and advised him to contact the NDMC. He contacted complaint office, NDMC in Moti Bagh. A lineman was sent from there to see the fault. He made some repair in the junction box in the house and the voltage became normal. It is further alleged that the damage to the VCR was caused on account of fault in the junction box. The complainant, further averred that he had to spend an amount of Rs. 900/- for getting the VCR repaired and was entitled to recover that amount from the NDMC. Consequently he filed a complaint for recovery of the amount before the District Forum.

The complaint was opposed by NDMC, defendant. They denied their liability. The District Forum decreed the claim of the complainant as mentioned above. The defendant has come up in appeal to the State Commission.

THE appeal was first argued on 3.1.91. After hearing the arguments we were of the opinion that the CPWD was a necessary party to the case. THErefore, we directed that the said department be impleaded as party. A notice was issued to the Executive Engineer, CPWD, Chankya Puri, New Delhi. Sh. J.K. Garg, Executive Engineer, CPWD, Chankya Puri appeared before us on the date of hearing and contested the claim of the complainant. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant, the Executive Engineer, CPWD and the representative of the complainant (respondent). The only question that arises for determination is, whether the alleged high voltage was due to negligence on the part of the appellant or CPWD. It is admitted that the high voltage was found in the house of the complainant and one other house to which the electric supply was given from the same junction box from which the electric supply was given to the complainant''s house and that electric energy was supplied by NDMC. It is also admitted before us by the complainant''s agent that if high voltage had been released by the NDMC in the main line all the houses to which the electric supply was given there from would have been effected and their electric fittings would have been damaged. As already mentioned above no such thing happened. Therefore it cannot be said that there was negligence on the part of NDMC.

NOW it is to be seen whether there was any negligence on the part of CPWD. The agent of the complainant argued that there was some fault in the junction box where from the electric supply was given to the house of the complainant. The parties admit that the junction box had been fixed by CPWD and it was responsible for its maintenance. It is further admitted that the junction box was not required to be sealed and was accessible to all the persons. We were further informed that no one from CPWD came to repair the junction box within a short period before the complainant received high voltage on that date. If the junction box was not repaired on that date and the high voltage was stated to be due to some fault in the junction box, the CPWD cannot be held responsible for high voltage and consequently for damage to the VCR of the complainant. It emerges from the aforesaid discussion that there was no negligence either on the part of NDMC or on the part of CPWD. For the aforesaid reasons we accept the appeal, set-aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. However, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.