|
ELECTRICITY SERVICE AND THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT Loss due to voltage fluctuations Damage to electronic gadgets and household equipments due to severe voltage fluctuations is another issue which consumer forums have addressed. Though the number of cases are few, they have highlighted the responsibility of the SEBs in supplying electric power with proper voltage. Section 54 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, provides that except with the written consent of the consumer or with the previous sanction of the state government, a supplier shall not permit the voltage at the point of commencement of supply as defined under Rule 58 to vary from the declared voltage - in the case of low or medium voltage, by more than 6 per cent or in the case of high voltage, by more than 6 per cent on the higher side or by more than 9 per cent on the lower side, or in the case of extra-high voltage, by more than 10 per cent on the higher side or by more than 12.5 per cent on the lower side. However consumers continue to experience low or high voltage leading to damage to the equipments. In such a case who is to pay the compensation? Is the SEB liable? If so under what circumstances? In the case of APSEB vs.Y.C.Chennaiah the Andhra Pradesh State Commission has ruled that 'if the SEB fails to maintain the minimum voltage required to be maintained for a particular kind of supply, then such failure amounts to deficiency in service within the meaning of the CPA. As a result of such deficiency if a consumer suffers any loss or damage he is entitled to claim compensation' On the other hand the National Commission has taken a different view in the case of Travancore Oxygen Limited vs. Kerala State Electricity Board. In this case it was alleged that the company suffered huge production losses due to voltage fluctuations. Rejecting the argument, the Commission said that there is nothing in the complaint which goes to show that there was any wilful action on the part of the Board resulting in the alleged voltage fluctuations to the petitioner. It is also not established by the petitioner that the alleged losses in production were solely due to power constraints. In the circumstances, it is not possible to deduce any deficiency in the services of the electricity board. One fine day in the evening there was a sudden surge of high voltage in Bellary city of Karnataka. Several household electronic and electrical gadgets were damaged and rendered defective. The Bellary Citizens' Forum took up the case on behalf of the consumers and filed a complaint in the District Forum. They sought compensation from the Karnataka Electricity Board. The District Forum found deficiency in the service of KEB and directed payment of compensation. The KEB appealed to the State Commission and argued that the voltage surge was due to snapping of neutral wire jump at a pole and as per Section 22 of the KEB Regulations, it could not be held liable for any claim for loss or damage arising out of the voltage variation. The Commission agreed to this argument and decided that unless the consumers prove that they suffered injury or loss on account of negligence of the KEB, they cannot be compensated. But the same Karnataka State Commission in a recent case (KEB vs. H.S.Sitaram) decided in February 2000 has held the KEB liable for damages arising due to snapping of wires. In this case the TV set of Mr.Sitaram and his neighbor was damaged due to sudden surge in power supply in the locality. When the consumer approached the KEB to reimburse the cost of repair and give compensation, he was informed that since the high voltage was on account of a tree falling on 3 phase-4 phase wire system, it was purely a case of accident for which the KEB could not shoulder any responsibility. The District Forum found deficiency in service on the part of the KEB and directed it to pay compensation. This was challenged in the State Commission. The KEB once again quoted Regulation 22 and contended that it has no liability for any claim of loss or damage arising out of variation in power supply. Further it said that this was a case of force majore where the KEB is helpless. But the State Commission refused to buy this argument. Referring to the relevant Regulations (29 and 30 ) of the KEB, which casts duty upon the Board to maintain supply lines and apparatus, the State Commission said that 'tree branches crowing the power line is a constant source of hazard which requires constant trimming to avoid mishap. Precariously outgrowing trees are also a constant source of damage which are to be identified and neutralised without which there will be no protection to the power lines. The rule enivsages that all such damages are to be anticipated and removed timely, so as to ensure safety of not only human beings and animals but also safety of property' The State Commission refused to accept the contention of the KEB and said that we find definite shortcoming and inadequacy in the manner of performance of the KEB under the Indian Electrical Rules in order to protect the property of the complainant. It is therefore held that the KEB is guilty of deficiency in service.
|
