FIRST APPEAL NO. 698 OF 2005

FIRST APPEAL NO. 699 OF 2005

         Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

2.      Both the appeals arise out of common impugned order passed by the learned District Forum,Sundargarh – II, Rourkela   in C.D. Case No. 133 of 2004. Therefore, both the appeals were heard together. This common order shall govern the result of both the appeals.

3.      These appeals are filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum. FA No. 698 of 2005 has been filed by OP Nos. 2 whereas FA No. 699 of 2005 has been filed by OP No.3.

4.   The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant has purchased a colour TV set from  OP No.1 on payment of consideration amount of Rs.15,990/-. It is alleged inter alia that during use of TV on 18.10.2004 there was fire broke out from the TV and has spread to other areas causing damages by fire to TV and other articles of the complainant. Thereafter, he made complaint before the OPs who did not take steps. As there is damage by fire due to short circuit, complainant filed the complaint case.

5.      OP Nos.  2 and 3 filed written version stating that after getting information they sent the Service Engineer  who opined that the fire did not originate from the TV but may be some apparatus from the site of TV set. Therefore, they have no any deficiency in service.

6.      After hearing both parties, learned District Forum passed the following impugned order:-

                   “xxx   xxx  xxx

Therefore, we direct the opp.parties to handover a new television set of same brand and same type with its warranty and all documents, on free of cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. If the same brand and same type does not available, the petitioner shall be handed over a TV set within the same period as per his own choice and the differential amount shall be borne by the petitioner. Further the opp.parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner towards compensation for harassment, mental agony and litigation of this case within the aforesaid period.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by relying report of the Assistant Fire Officer but not the Service Engineer deputed by the OPs. He also submitted that Fire Officer is not competent person to opine the cause of fire and the report should not be the basis for computing the loss. He therefore, submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.      It is admitted fact that the TV was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1. It is also admitted fact that on 31.10.2004 the fire broke out from the TV and it also spreaded to near areas causing damage to other articles of the complainant. No doubt the Fire Officer’s report has been exhibited by the complainant. The report is clear to show that due to short circuit happened inside the TV stand caused damage by fire. It has also opined that there is short circuit of electric supply in the TV set itself caused the fire in spreading other areas and destroy other articles. On the other hand, the Service Engineer’s report was not appreciated by the learned District Forum because he is the employee of OPs. His report is also not clear to find out reason because he is not the Electrical Engineer. The report of the Fire Officer cannot be thrown out on the mere plea that he is not an expert. It must be remembered that the Fire Agency is a specialized agency and the Fire Officer appointed normally after going through the training on the cause of fire and extinguish of fire in different areas with regard to fire. When a trained person has opined the cause of fire and the Service Engineer being not a trained one being employee of the OPs opined the learned District Forum has rightly appreciated the certificate of the Fire Officer about cause of the fire.

10.    In view of above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the learned District  Forum. Hence, the impugned order is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.