The main legal point established is that the complainant must prove negligence or deficiency in service by the respondent to succeed in a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Headnote:
Explosion - Consumer Dispute - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(o), Section 2(1)(g), Section 2(1)(r), Section 14(1)(d), Section 14(1)(f), Section 14(1)(g), Section 14(1)(h), Section 21(b)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, including the definitions of 'consumer', 'complaint', 'deficiency', 'service', 'unfair trade practice', and the powers of the State Commission. The court's decision was influenced by the complainant's failure to prove negligence or deficiency in service by the petitioner, as well as the technical evidence presented regarding the cause of the explosion.
Fact of the Case:

The complainant's computer system, including the modem provided by the petitioner, exploded, causing damage. The complainant sought compensation for the damage, loss of information, mental agony, and other expenses.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the complainant failed to prove that the explosion was due to negligence or deficiency in service by the petitioner. The court also noted technical evidence suggesting that the explosion was caused by back flow of current from the complainant's UPS, and not due to the petitioner's internet connection.
Issues: The issues revolved around the cause of the explosion, the liability of the petitioner, and the complainant's failure to prove negligence or deficiency in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant failed to discharge the onus of proving negligence or deficiency in service by the petitioner, and technical evidence suggested that the explosion was caused by back flow of current from the complainant's UPS.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the State Commission's order and directing the refund of the deposited amount to the petitioner.

ORDER

Mr. Justice V.K. Jain, Presiding Member -The complainant, a student of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering obtained an internet connection from the petitioner, which was activated on 1.10.2005. At about 2.00 p.m. on 9.10.2005, the modem which the petitioner had supplied to the complainant, exploded, as a result of which the entire computer unit including the UPS, cable LAN and the modem got burnt. The case of the complainant is that at the time the explosion took place the computer system was not in operation and the power had been switched off. On a written complaint being lodged by the complainant a technical team of the petitioner inspected the site of explosion and noticed that there was no damage to any electrical appliance such as refrigerator, air conditioner, etc. Based upon the report of its technical team the petitioner informed the complainant that the explosion was not on account of any power leakage in the cable network. Being aggrieved from the stand taken by the petitioner the complainant approached the Orissa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the State Commission) seeking the following reliefs:

(a) For damage of computer unit: Rs. 29,800 such as CPU, UPS, Monitor, etc.

(b) For cost of Modem: Rs. 1,750.

(d) For loss of valuable information stored which cannot be recovered: Rs. 3,00,000.

(e) For mental agony and loss of future: Rs. 5,50,000.

(f) For Treat to life: Rs. 11,50,000

(g) For litigation :Rs. 10,000

(h) For conveyance, loss of time, Xerox, telephone and misc. expenses: Rs. 6,040.

2. The complaint was resisted by the appellants on the ground that no power/electrical current passes through the internet cable and there was no sign of high current flowing in the said cable, which otherwise was highly insulated and permitted only the cable signals to pass through it. It was also pointed out that there was no sign of any burn/damage to the cable connectivity port which had been supplied to the complainant. On the request of the complainant the State Commission directed one Ashish Mohanty, Computer Engineer to inspect the site and submit his report. Mr. Mohanty submitted a report, stating therein that the entire computer unit, viz., UPS, LAN cable and cable modem as well as mother board had been burnt and the system had got fully damaged.

3. The complainant engaged the services of one Mr. Saroj Kumar Nayak, Hardware Engineer who claims to have visited the residence of the complainant on 10.10.2005 and inspected the damaged computer unit. The report of Mr. Nayak inter alia reads as under:

"A. From the Cesco's line current flows connecting to metre and main switch of a consumer through bridges wherefrom the current is supplied to every room of the house and in case of flow of high voltage beyond the capacity the fuses in bridges are bound to born and thereby the supply line to the whole of the house remains disconnected. Even in case of passage of high voltage, the other electrical goods of the house i.e. fan, refrigerator, bulbs, etc., would be damaged which is not a fact in the present case.

B. The Computer system with modem, etc., were kept in the bed room and current is supplied to UPS through which current flows to different parts of Computer System. In the present case the explosion took place during lunch hour at about 2 p.m. when the Computer System was not in service and the power was switched off.

In order to explain the current supply to UPS and then to CPU through SMPS and the different connections to different parts have been broadly shown in a diagram.

C. The UPS controls the fluctuation of current and saves the entire computer system from damage. In case of a high voltage beyond the bearable capacity, the FUSE of UPS burns first so that the current supply to other parts break.

D. The CPU is the main part of the Computer where current flows to SMPS (Switch Mode Power Supply) through UPS. The SMPS saves the mother

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

The main legal point established is that the complainant must prove negligence or deficiency in service by the respondent to succeed in a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Login now and unlock premium legal research