SECRETARY, KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD vs SECRETARY, BELLARY CITIZENS FORUM

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 28.7.1990 passed by the District Forum, Gulbarga in Complaint No. C-3/90/496 on its file. It arises in this way: The Respondent herein who is the Secretary of the Bellary Citizens'' Forum, Bellary, which is a registered Social Consumer Organisation, filed a complaint on behalf of nine consumers of Electricity of Bellary alleging that on 9.1.1990 at about 5.50 p.m. due to sudden high voltage surge, the electric equipments and fittings of the consumers got damaged and claimed damages amounting to Rs. 3,880/- in respect of the nine consumers together.

THE complaint was resisted by the Karnataka Electricity Board (for short K.E.B.) by contending inter alia that there was no surge as alleged by the complainant, that the allegation that due to alleged high voltage supply, the consumers equipment and fittings have got damaged is false; that the Panchanama drawn behind the back of the KEB is not valid and that the consumers are not entitled to any compensation. PW1 to PW3 were examined on behalf of the complainant and exhibits P1 to P4 were produced. RW1 was examined on behalf of the KEB and Exhibits R1 to R6 were produced. THE District Forum held that there was deficiency in service in that there was surge of voltage and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,515/- (to all the nine complainants together) together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order till the date of payment and costs of Rs. 500/- to the complainants. Hence this appeal by the K.E.B. Mr. V.N. Sathyanarayana, learned Counsel for the KEB has fairly placed the report of the investigation made by the KEB officials after receiving the complaints of the consumers and the said report reveals that there was voltage surge due to the snapping of neutral wire jump at Pole No. 1003, opposite to Bellary Nursing Home on 9.1.1990. The said report does not disclose what was the cause of the snapping of neutral wire jump. The complainant has also not stated in the complaint that the voltage surge on that day was due to the negligence of the officials of the KEB. Mere fluctuation in the voltage will not by itself give cause of action to the consumers for claiming damages because according to Regulation 22 of the KEB Regulations, the Board shall not be liable for any claim for loss or damage arising out of voltage variation. So the complainant has to prove that it was due to the negligence of the officials of the KEB that the consumers suffered loss resulting in damage to their electrical equipments. In the complaint sent by the consumers to PW 1, it is vaguely stated that on enquiry with the departmental people, it is learnt that because of replacement of transformer of the locality and slight negligent attitude of the departmental staff there was fluctuation in the voltage on that day. That also has not been substantiated by the complainants by examining the official concerned who gave that information. Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (provisions of which are made applicable) enumerates the orders that may be passed by the District Forum in the event of allegations contained in the complaint being proved. We are concerned in this case with only Clause (d) of the said Section which is in the following terms: 14. If, after the proceeding conducted under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to take one or more of the following things, namely: "(d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of the opposite party".

Hence, it is clear that under the said Clause compensation can be awarded to consumer only in respect of any loss or injury found to have been suffered by him due to the negligence of the opposite party. Unless negligence is proved, compensation cannot be awarded to the consumers.

Mr. V.N.S. Learned Counsel for the Respondent urged that the matter may be remanded and an opportunity may be given to both sides to prove whether the voltage surge on the date of incident was or was not due to the negligence of the officials of the KEB. Under the circumstances of the case, we think that the proper course to be adopted is to remand the case and give a fair opportunity to both sides to prove their case as it would not prejudice the interests of either.

WE may also mention here that the award of compensation for the alleged mental agony to the consumers is not called for, for the simple reason that the consumers cannot be said to have suffered mental agony by the loss of bulbs or tubes. In the result, the Order of the District Forum is set aside and the case is remanded to the District Forum for fresh disposal in the light of the above observations and after giving an opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence. No costs. Case remanded.