Power boards liable for poor service

Pushpa Girimaji

DurING the hot summer months, people not only face frequent disruptions in power supply, but also sudden surges in voltage. Sometimes these voltage spikes are so steep that they damage and destroy expensive household electrical and electronic appliances. In some cases, they may even damage the entire wiring in a house, or cause a major fire. When that happens, one would expect the power supply undertaking to take responsibility for its negligent service, and make good the loss suffered by the consumer.

But such expectations are often belied, forcing the client to seek the assistance of courts for compensation. And the courts have not disappointed the complainants. In the case of Rajendra Kumar Tripathi vs Chairman, Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board, Lucknow (First appeal no 80 of 2001, decided on December 12, 2006), for example, the courts awarded adequate compensation to help the client recover the losses suffered on account of a surge in supply, thereby sending a clear message to service providers that they cannot get away with negligent service.

This case goes back to 1991 when a steep and sudden voltage spike damaged all the electrical gadgets, including television sets and a refrigerator, in Tripathi’s residence. That was not all. The entire internal wiring in his house got burnt, and so also the electricity meters. On investigation, it was found that a high tension line, passing in front of his house, had snapped and fallen on the road, and subsequently had connected with the low tension line supplying power at 220 volts to Tripathi’s house.

Obviously, none of the electrical gadgets or even the cables running inside Tripathi’s house could take the high tension power supply. Tripathi had to incur heavy expenditure to get the house re-wired and also buy new gadgets. Subsequently, he asked the service provider to recompense him for his losses. However, even though an assistant engineer, who visited his house, confirmed the cause of the damage, the UP State Electricity Board did not respond to Tripathi’s plea for compensation.

Eventually, Tripathi sought the help of the tehsildar to assess the loss, and filed a case before the court. The national consumer disputes redressal commission, accordingly, awarded a compensation of Rs 1.75 lakh, along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent to be calculated from the date of filing the complaint (1992) till the date of payment. It also awarded litigation costs of Rs 5,000 to the client.

This order makes two important points. One, that consumers can get compensation for the loss caused on account of sudden voltage spikes in power supply. Two, that electricity boards have to respond to complaints with alacrity. Failure to do so is also deficiency in service. In this case, for example, the service provider failed to send an electrical inspector, as required under the rules, to assess the damage and pay for it.

In another case, the commission awarded compensation to a chemist whose business was ruined on account of the fire caused by a sudden voltage surge. In his complaint filed against the Haryana State Electricity Board, the chemist alleged that a steep surge in voltage caused a short circuit, and the resultant fire destroyed the medical supplies in his shop, besides a refrigerator and a television set.

On the basis of the loss estimated by a surveyor who was called in, the state commission directed the board to make good the loss suffered by the consumer by paying Rs 2,19,316 along with 12 per cent interest. This was upheld by the national commission (Haryana State Electricity Board vs Anand Medicos:RP No 563 of 2002).

These two cases are extremely important from the point of view of customers as they protect their rights, hold electricity boards liable for poor service, and more important, provide the affected persons adequate compensation. In many of the earlier cases filed on the issue, the complaints were either dismissed on grounds of insufficient proof, or the compensation awarded was too meagre. The first case also underscores the need for service providers to respond positively and quickly to people’s complaints.

HOME