Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member, Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
M/s. National Flask Industries
Ltd. —Complainant
versus
Gujarat Electricity Board & Ors. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No. 71 of 2001
Decided on 16.4.2015
For the Complainant:Mr. Subodh Gokhale, Advocate
For the Opp.Parties:Mr. Prasenjit Keswani & Ms. Puja Singh, Advocates for Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
It is abhorrent from principles of law to raise same rejected claim, time and again, against one party or other.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Electricity—Voltage fluctuation—Fire accident—Insurance company has thoroughly considered pros and cons of claim made by complainant—Surveyor has partly rejected its claim on valid, just and reasonable grounds—It is abhorrent from principles of law to raise same rejected claim, time and again, against one party or other—Loss by short circuit, simpliciter does not bring OPs into picture—It is complainant and nobody else who has to prove that due to power voltage fluctuation and erratic supply from then GEB incident took place—There is no evidence at all to prove this point—Cause of fire was due to negligence on part of complainant in keeping inflammable material near electricity equipment in contradiction with Electricity Rules—Consumer complaint dismissed.
Held: Voltage Regulator not installed at the time of accident, i.e., 03.11.1998 and was installed on 16.02.1999 by OP after the fire accident (pg. 1098).
The logic trotted out by the counsel for the complainant does not help the legal proceedings. Due to lack of solid and concrete evidence, it may be assumed that there may be over voltage at 6.45PM, but assumptions cannot take place of evidence. There is no evidence on record that except for informing the OPs, regarding the above said loss, no further proceedings were initiated against the OPs, by the complainant, at the nick of time. No claim was ever made. No legal notice was ever given, within time. No effort was made to request the Electricity Board to appoint an Electrical Inspector to give the exact report about the loss. The loss by short circuit, simpliciter, does not bring the OPs into the picture. It is the complainant and nobody else, who has to prove that due to power voltage fluctuation and erratic supply from the then GEB, the above said incident took place. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence at all to prove this point. In the instant case, the entire evidence, if taken together, the clear picture, yet, does not begin to jell. The most material evidence would have been from the Electric Inspector, from the Electricity Board, itself. Mere ipse dixit will not do. The log sheets show the low voltage and not the high voltage, as alleged.
From the record, it also appears that the cause of fire was due to negligence on the part of the complainant in keeping inflammable material near the electricity equipment in contradiction with the Electricity Rules.The duty cast on this Commission is to tweezering (plucking) the trash. The evidence adduced by the complainant is not worth a whoop. The case of the complainant does not stand proved and there is not even a scintilla of doubt in mind of this Commission, about the same. The case is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. (Paras 24, 34, 42 and 44)
Result: Consumer complaint dismissed.
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member—“Whether, the part repudiation or alleged part settlement of claim with insurance company, gives rise to a fresh cause of action against the third-party, i.e., the Gujarat Electricity Board (in short ‘GEB’), now known as ‘Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., to bring the case within the period of limitation, otherwise barred by time?”. “Whether, the over/low voltage fluctuation can cause short circuit causing big loss under the facts and circumstances to be detailed herein with?”. These knotty problems are to be adjudicated herewith.
2. The above said complaint was filed by M/s. National Flask Industries Ltd., the complainant, on 27.02.2001 against the Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., (Formerly known as Gujarat Electricity Board) Balitha and its functionaries, viz., Executive Engineer and Deputy Engineer, OPs 1 to 3, respectively. The main allegation against the OPs was that there was constant power voltage fluctuation and erratic supply from the Dakshin Gujarat Vij Co. Ltd., (Formerly known as Gujarat Electricity Board). Many letters were also sent in this respect, but those did not ring the bell. M/s.National Flask Industries Limited, the complainant, transacts the business of manufacturing moulded and insulated plastic articles for household use at Plot No. A-2, Shed No. 502 in GIDC Industrial State, Sarigam. They have also taken the adjoining shed being Plot No. A-2, Shed No. 504 belonging to M/s Crown Industries, which is a sister concern of the complainant.
3. In the year 1987, the complainant, M/s.National Flask Industries Limited (originally known as M/s. Maruti Plastics Industries) at the time of commencement of its business) entered into an agreement dated 13.03.1987, with the then Gujarat Electricity Board-OP-1, for the supply of electricity to its premises, wherein OP-1 agreed to reserve for and to supply to the complainant, electrical energy upto a maximum of 300 KVA for Manufacturing Unit of the complainant. Clause 5 of the agreement stipulated that the electricity would be maintained by the supplier of the electrical energy of the above stated voltage and frequency at the said point of delivery. According to clause 14 of the agreement, reasonable precautions to ensure continuity of supply of power to the complainant/consumer were to be taken by the suppliers/OPs, except under certain ‘force majeure’ conditions. Copy of the said agreement has been placed on record as Annexure P-1.
4. The complainant used to face constant hardships owing to the fluctuating voltage in the electricity supplied by the then Gujarat Electricity Board to its premises. At times, the electricity fluctuation was so severe that the machinery and other electric gadgets installed in the said premises were required to be instantly shut down for extensive damage was caused to it. On each such occasion, the OPs were apprised of these facts. The complainant also made several representations to ‘Sarigam Industries Association’ (in short, ‘SIA’). It also addressed letters dated 04.05.1993 and 07.05.1993 to the SIA, copies of which were produced on the record as Annexures P-2 and P-3, respectively. The OPs were to carry out a checking program but the same was not materialized. Further, another letter dated 02.07.1993 was sent to OP-1, copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P-4.
5. The complainant received reply from OP-3 dated 07.07.1993 and another letter dated 27.06.1993 sent by OP-2. These letters reveal that necessary instructions were given to the Deputy Engineer, GEB, Sarigam as regards the action to be taken in future with such voltage fluctuation occurred, copies of which have been placed on record as Annexure P-5. However, no action was taken. The Complainant sent another letter dated 12.08.1993, wherein the grievance was again repeated. Copy of said letter has been placed on record as Annexure P-6. Although, one year had elapsed, yet, there was no improvement in the voltage situation. The situation became w
