|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Snapped
power supply lines have often caused death and destruction in
different parts of the country, eliciting strong condemnation from law
courts and consumer courts. In fact some years ago, when 10 people
were seriously injured as a result of the snapping of an electricity
line in Hapur, even the National Human Rights Commission had been
provoked into ordering an interim relief of Rs 10,000 to each of the
injured, in addition to directing the Uttar Pradesh State Electricity
Board to take disciplinary action against the officials in charge of
the maintenance of the line. Expressing shock at what had happened,
the NHRC had commented that the board had been grossly negligent,
almost bordering on recklessness. Yet, cases of such
recklessness continue to come up before various courts. In fact what
is apparent in most of these cases is the service providers’ callous
indifference to consumer complaints about dangerous, live wires left
exposed in public places and on private properties. A case filed by a
farmer before the apex consumer court some time ago had shown, for
example, how the electricity board had ignored the consumer’s
repeated complaints about the continuous sparking of the overhead
high-tension wires, thereby posing a threat to his standing crop. Sure
enough, the wires had caused a raging fire, which completely gutted
the farmer’s only means of livelihood. Now a recent order of the court also highlights a similar attitude to consumer complaints. In this case, the court has directed the UP State Electricity Board and the power supply undertaking in Kanpur (KESCO) to recompense the consumer for the loss caused to him as a result of the negligence of the service provider. The compensation amount of Rs 1.75 lakh carries with it an interest of six per cent to be calculated from the date of filing the complaint (1992) till the date of payment. It has also awarded costs of Rs 5000 to the consumer. The
incident, resulting in the complaint, goes back to the year 1991. On
November 10, a high-tension wire passing in front of Rajendra Kumar
Tripathi’s house snapped and fell on the road and later came in
contact with a low-tension wire supplying power at 220 volts to his
house. This suddenly jacked up the voltage, resulting in the
destruction of all electrical gadgets in Tripathi’s house. This
included television sets, refrigerator, voltage stabilisers, spike
busters and the internal wiring in the house. Even the electricity
meters in his house were burnt. According to Tripathi, his complaints
to the then Kanpur Electricity Supply (KESA) Authority did not bring
any positive response. An assistant engineer who visited the house
confirmed the incident, but KESA did not respond to his pleas for
compensation. Eventually, Tripathi contacted the District Collector,
who in turn asked the tehsildar to assess the loss and wrote to the
general manager, KESA. When there was no response to this letter too,
Tripathi filed a complaint before the State Commission. Before
the State Commission, the service provider argued that the
high-tension line had a safety guard which ensured automatic switching
off of the high-tension wire on coming in contact with a low-tension
wire. So the high-tension line could not have caused this mishap in
the complainant’s house. Another argument put forward by the
electricity board was that under the electricity rules, the
electricity inspector is the competent authority to assess the loss
and not the tehsildar. On the basis of these arguments, the State
Commission dismissed the complaint. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, before which the consumer filed an appeal, however brushed aside such arguments. The Commission pointed out that firstly, an assistant engineer who had visited the house of the complainant had already confirmed that the loss was caused to the consumer on account of the high-tension line coming in contact with the low-tension line. Secondly,
despite Tripathi’s complaint and repeated reminders, the service
provider did not appoint an inspector, as required under the law.
Eventually, the consumer was forced to approach the District
Collector, who in turn appointed the tehsildar. There was nothing
wrong in the tehsildar assessing the loss, considering that in cases
of natural or man-made calamities, the collector or the tehsildar
often assess the loss caused, the Commission said. It therefore set
aside the order of the lower consumer court and awarded the consumer
compensation on the basis of the assessment made by the tehsildar. Hopefully,
orders such as these will make the electricity supply undertakings
more safety-conscious and responsible.
|
||
|
|
||
