Haryana

StateCommission

A/1129/2016

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.P.GULATI - Opp.Party(s)

RAJNEESH MALHOTRA

17 Feb 2017

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                  

                                                Appeal No.1129  of  2016 in

First appeal No.1090 of 2009

Date of the Institution: 04.08.2009

Date of Decision: 17.02.2017

 

Sub divisional Officer, (OP), Sub division 1-H/IA NIT, DHBVNL, Faridabad.

                                                                   .….Appellant

 

Versus

 

Anand Prakash Gulati S/oSh. Ram Lal Gulati,R/o 3-D-77, NIT Faridabad.

                                                                             .….Respondent

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.B.D.Bhatia, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                    Mr.Rohit Goswami, Advocate counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R

R.K.Bishnoi, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

 

          It was alleged by the complainant that he was running general store under the name and style of M/s Anand General Store since 1970. On 29.05.2001 after closing his shop at about 09.30 p.m. he went to his house. During night he was informed that due to sparking and short circutting in transformer, existing opposite to his shop, fire broke out and his shop was engulfed therein.   He immediately went there and found that his entire stock, worth more than Rs.five lacs, including account book, bills etc were destroyed.  Daily Diary Report (DDR) was lodged at police station (P.S.) NIT Faridabad on 30.05.2011. He was earning Rs.6000/- per month from his shop and invested Rs.three lacs just before the incident. Value of shop was Rs.01.14 lacs.  As per value report dated 03.06.2001. Opposite Party (O.P.)  was responsible for this incident.  He approached O.P. to pay damages, but, to no avail.  He again started business after borrowing money from others but income did not exceed Rs.Four thousand per month. Qua this aspect he suffered loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/- up to the month of April 2002.  He was having recurring loss of Rs.3000/- per month. 

          Initially he filed complaint No.10 of 2003 before Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (In short “National Commission”) and requested to pay compensation of Rs.25/- lacs, but, during preliminary arguments it was opined by Hon’ble National Commission that amount claimed by him was on higher side so he withdrew that complaint on 28.02.2003 and filed present complaint.  O.P. be directed to pay Rs.15/- lacs as of compensation.

2.      O.p. filed reply controverting his averments and alleged that when officials visited spot it was found that fire was not due to sparking  in transformer situated opposite to shop of complainant.  His averments to this effect were altogether wrong. This incident was handy work of complainant.  Valuer did not asses value of shop to the tune of Rs.01.14/- lacs. He did not spend Rs.01.75/- lacs on re-construction.  He did not put stock worth Rs.02.50/- lacs in the shop.  His income from the store was not as alleged by him.  He did not suffer loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/- upto month of April 2000.  He was not entitled for compensation as claimed by him.  Objections about jurisdiction, maintainability of complaint, applicability of principle of res judicata etc. were also raised and requested to dismiss complaint.

3.      After hearing counsel for the complainant, learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 08.06.2009 and directed as under:-

“In view of the above mentioned discussion the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.Six lac to the complainant within four months from the date on which copy of this order is received by it or its duly authorized agent failing which an interest @ 18% per month shall accrue thereon.”

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. has preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard. File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that he was having stock worth more than Rs.Five lacs in the shop, which was burnt alongwith all the account books etc. in this incident. He spent Rs.1,75,000/- on re-construction of shop whose value was assessed as Rs.01.14 lacs by surveyor. This incident took place due to short circut in transformer. At the time of incident he was earning Rs.Six thousand per month and now he is earning Rs.Four thousand per month.  Learned District Forum rightly granted compensation so appeal be dismissed.

7.      On the other hand learned counsel for O.P./appellant vehemently argued that there is no evidence on the file showing that there was any sparking or short circut in transformer. It has no where come in evidence that transformer was removed due to damage, so his story is not believable. Even otherwise he has not produced proper evidence to prove loss, so he is not entitled for any compensation.  Even otherwise amount of compensation and interest are on higher side, so impugned order be set aside.

8.      Neither the arguments of complainant’s counsel nor of O.P’s. counsel can be accepted in toto.  Complainant has specifically alleged that due to short circut in transformer his shop was burnt.  As per site plan prepared by Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) of O.P. distance in between shop and transformer is five feet. So, possibility of catching fire from such a short distance cannot be ruled out. Except averments  it is not possible for complainant to produce any evidence about damage to transformer. The appellant-O.ps. could have produced record to show that no such incident was ever reported.  Mere denial of short circutting is not sufficient to presume this fact.  After some sparking there may not have been further damage to the transformer.  So, it cannot be presumed that incident of fire did not take place due to short circutting in transformer. 

9.      Now question comes about compensation.  In complaint it was alleged that stock worth Rs.Five lacs was laying in shop, whereas when complainant appeared before this Commission it was alleged that goods worth Rs. Five to seven lacs were laying in shop. He is changing his stand about stock from time to time.

10.    More so, initially he asked for compensation to the tune of Rs.25/- lacs, but, Hon’ble National Commission did not agree with the same and asked him to file complaint before District Forum. It shows that he has exaggerated the amount.

11.    More over it is alleged by him that he invested about Rs.three lacs in his business just before the incident. When he invested Rs.Three lacs how goods worth Rs.Five lacs were there in the shop.  He has also not produced any evidence regarding his income.  In the absence of any cogent evidence it cannot be presumed that he suffered loss as alleged by him or that he spent Rs.01.75 lacs for re-construction of shop.  There is no cogent evidence on the file to show that the shop was totally burnt and was to be re-constructed. In the absence of any evidence it can be safely presumed that  he has not spent such a huge amount for re-furnishing his shop.

13.    Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances compensation awarded to complainant is reduced to Rs.Four lacs  alongwith interest @ 09% per annum from the date of filing of complaint because the rate of interest is awarded by the learned District Forum is on higher side.  With this modification, appeal stands disposed of.

 

February 17th, 2017

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.