Judgment:
S. Parvatha Rao, President:
1. The opposite parties in Consumer Case No. 879 / 1992 have preferred this appeal questioning the order of the Visakhapatnam District Forum in that CC dated 14.10.197 directing them to pay to the complainant i.e. the respondent before us, Rs. 2,495/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 15.12.1992 till the date of payment within two months.
2. The complainant's grievance was that there was sudden shooting up of the voltage of the electrical energy that was being supplied to his residence by the appellants on 25.9.1991, because of which his colour T.V. was burnt and that he had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,665/- to get it repaired, and again on 26.4.1992 there was high voltage of the electrical energy and consequently the picture tube of Black and White T.V. was also burnt and he had to spend Rs. 830/- to replace and get it repaired. The complainant, on that basis, sought direction from the Visakhapatnam District Forum to the appellants for paying him Rs. 2,495/- towards compensation for the loss incurred by him due to sudden upward swing in the voltage of the electrical energy that was supplied on those days.
3. The appellants appeared before the District Forum and in their version they contended that there was no fluctuation in the voltage on those two days as contended by the complainant. They also questioned the loss occasioned to the complainant and the expenses incurred by him for getting the T.Vs. repaired which were supported by the bills said to have been obtained by the complainant dated 26.9.1991, 28.4.1992 and 2.5.1992.
The District Forum held as follows:
"When it is the specific case of the complainant that there was high voltage and due to that he suffered damage, we are unable to understand as to why the opposite parties did not place any material before us to show that there was no high voltage in proof of their said allegation. It is the department that will be having some record to show that high voltage had not taken place. We are of the opinion that the non- placing of any record or data by the opposite parties to show that there was no high voltage calls for adverse inference to be drawn by this Forum. The complainant was cross-examined at length but nothing tangible could be elicited from the cross- examination..... It may be mentioned here that in the counter of the opposite parties, it was alleged that the complainant wanted some shifting of lines on the ground that they were passing through his property and as the opposite parties expressed their inability to shift the said lines, this case was foisted by the complainant. The said stand taken by the opposite parties was not at all put to the complainant in his cross examination, and no suggestion to that effect was put to him. For all the above reasons we hold that due to high voltage only the complainant suffered damage to his two T.Vs."
We are not inclined to interfere with those findings of the District Forum. The complainant has not claimed any exorbitant sums but only an overall amount of Rs. 2,495 /- in respect of the two T.Vs. which, according to him, were affected by the high voltage. He has placed material to establish the repairs effected to his two T.Vs. and also gave affidavit dated 19.7.1996 as evidence and he was cross-examined, which he withstood, in the cross- examination nothing tangible was elicited to show that he was not truthful. In that affidavit he stated that on 25.9.1991 due to high voltage the LOT of his Videocon T.V. was burnt and again on 26.4.1992 the picture tube of Black and White T.V was burnt due to high voltage and that he incurred Rs. 1,665/- and Rs. 830/- respectively towards repairs of the two T.Vs. He further stated as follows:
"I made so many complaints earlier to rectify the fluctuations in the supply of electrical power, but no action was taken by the A.P.S.E.B. I also filed another complaint against the opposite party in C.C. 878/1992 which was ended as compromised. I submit that the contents of my complaint and I pray the documents filed alongwith the complaint may be read as part of this affidavit. The opposite party filed its counter and denied that there was no high-voltage at all which is incorrect".
He filed xerox copies of Eenadu to establish that there were frequent high fluctuations in voltage at Visakhapatnam. In his cross-examination he stated that both his T.Vs. had voltage stabilizers at the relevant time. He also stated that because of high voltages his tube lights and fan also got damaged but he did not mention about it in the complaint. He further stated that he complained to the Superintendent Engineer of the A.P.S.E.B. (1st appellant) about high voltage. He filed copy of the letter dated 3.9.1992 addressed to the 1st appellant, marked as Ex. A1. Therein he stated that because of frequent high voltage of current his tube lights and T.Vs. were being damaged for which he was spending heavy amounts. Thus the appellants did not produce any reliable evidence and convincing material to establish that there were no high voltage fluctuations during the days in question and also the alleged motive for making the complaint against the opposite parties. An Assistant Engineer (Distr. III) Section, A.P.S.E.B. at Visakhapatnam gave an affidavit dated 14.3.1997 as evidence stating that there was no voltage fluctuation at all on 26.4.1992 in the area concerned and that it was "totally false to contend that the defect of high voltage current" was not rectified by the department. He also stated that if there was any high voltage the transformer would blow off. But no material whatsoever was placed in support of his statements.
4. We are of the view that when the Electricity Board undertakes to supply electrical energy at a particular voltage, the fluctuations in that voltage should be restricted to certain acceptable parameters, and unless the Authorities of the Board come forward with good reasons for the wide fluctuations as a fact found in the voltage of the electrical energy supplied, the Board would be held to be deficient in service. The question can be looked at from a different angle as well. If electrical energy is treated as goods, then the voltage at which it has to be supplied to the domestic consumers has to be maintained at the agreed level, failing which, the goods supplied by the Board will not be of the specified quality. On that basis also the Board will be liable.
5. We are supported in this view by the decision. of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Gujarat Electricity Board v. Sharda Madhusudan Desai, III (1992) CPJ 527=1992 (2) CPR 385. In the Asstt. Engineer, Chilakalaguda Sub-Station, APSEB and Anr. v. V. Madhusudhana Reddy, 1992 (2) CPR 692, the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held as follows :
".....it is firstly submitted.... that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and that the flow of high voltage if any occurred due to improper earthing of internal wiring of the complainant's house.... As the evidence disclose that there is no defect in the internal wiring the only conclusion that can be reached is that excess voltage was due to the burning out of the incoming cable at the pole. Since it is the opposite parties that maintains the electrical lines and as when a member of the staff inspected the house of the complainant on 19.7.1991 pursuant to the complaint made by the complainant he did not bother to check the connections at the pole, we are inclined to agree with the conclusion of the District Forum that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties".
6. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the order of the District Forum to the extent it directed the appellants herein to pay Rs. 2,495/- to the respondent.
7. The learned Standing Counsel for the Board, Mr. J. Siddaiah, submits that the interest awarded should be reduced to 6% from 18% awarded by the District Forum. When this appeal came up for admission on 19.3.1998, the learned Counsel for the appellants sought suspension of the order of the District Forum questioned in this appeal stating that the entire sum of Rs. 2,495/- together with interest thereon @ 18% as directed by the District Forum totalling to Rs. 4,785/- was deposited by way of a cheque in the Visakhapatnam District Forum to the credit of O.P. No 879/1992. In our order dated 19.3.1998 granting interim suspension as prayed for, we observed as follows:
"If that is so and if already the amount had not been withdrawn by the respondent/ complainant by the time this order reaches the Visakhapatnam District Forum, the said amount is directed to be kept in deposit pending further orders from this Commission. If the said amount had already been deposited there shall be stay of all further proceedings in P.P. No. 6/1998 pending further orders from this Commission".
Mr. Siddaiah states that the said orders were immediately communicated to the District Forum and that the amount was not withdrawn by the respondent/complainant before us. In the circumstances, we are inclined to modify the direction of the District Forum as regards the interest by reducing it from 18% to 10% calculated from the date of complaint i.e., 15.12.1992 till today. We quantify the total sum payable at Rs. 3,900/-.
8. In the result, we allow this appeal only to the extent of reducing the interest awarded by the District Forum from 18% to 10%. In other respects the order of the District Forum stands. The complainant will be permitted to withdraw Rs. 3,900/- out of Rs. 4,785/- deposited in the District Forum. The balance amount of Rs. 1,885/- shall be refunded to the appellants. No costs.
Appeal disposed of.