BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.: 470 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 4.10.2011.
Date of Decision: 5.8.2015.
Rishi Ram son of Shri Om Parkash care of M/s Rishi Confectionary, New Bus Stand Road, Near Fountain, Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani.
….Complainant.
Versus.
- Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. through its Chairman/President Hisar.
- The Executive Engineer, “OP” DHBVNL, Charkhi Dadri, district Bhiwani.
- The Sub Divisional Officer, “OP” City Division, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., Charkhi Dadri, District Bhiwani.
…...Respondents.
COMPLAINT UNDER SECTIONS 12 AND 13 OF
THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Sitting: - Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Anita Sheoran, Member,
Present: Shri M.L.Sardana, Advocate, for the complainant.
Shri R.S.Sharma, Advocate for respondents.
O R D E R
The case of the complainant in brief, is that he is having an electricity connection bearing No.CC-21/338 (New No.CC-21/1222) in his shop and has been making payment of electricity charges regularly, hence he is consumer qua respondents. The complainant alleged that on 23.10.2009 the shop caught fire due to sparking in meter/short circuit and entire stock including furniture, fridge, fan etc. were burnt and came in to ashes. The complainant further alleged that the shop is running only for the purpose of his livelihood and not for business purpose. The complainant further alleged that information regarding the said incident was given to the Ops, police as well as administration and the premises were inspected and fire brigade was also called and the fire was extinguished. The complainant further alleged that the loss caused was assessed to the tune of Rs.8,87,369/- from Patwari Halqa Patwari, Dadri to the stocks, furniture etc. The complainant further alleged that the shop caught fires due to technical fault/sparking in the electricity meter installed by the respondents and as such, they are liable to pay the loss caused to him. The complainant further alleged that he visited the office of respondents and requested to pay the compensation but they did not pay any heed. The complainant further alleged that due to act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony, physical harassment and financial losses. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such, he had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation by way of filing the present complaint.
2. Respondents on appearance filed written statement alleging therein that the supply was using for NDS purpose and as such the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. It is submitted that the shop of the complainant got fire due to some other reason and not due to electric short circuit or sparking because there was no joint in the cable from pole to meter and as such there is no deficiency on the part of Ops and complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. Both the parties filed their duly sworn affidavits to prove their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and having gone through the material available on the record, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the complainant is genuine and deserves to be accepted. It is admitted fact that the complainant is having an electricity connection bearing account No.CC-21/338 (New No.CC-21/1222). The contention of Ld. Counsel for the respondents is that the complainant has been using the electricity for NDS purpose and as such he does not fall under the definition of consumer. In our view, this plea of Ld. Counsel for the Ops has no substance at all because it has been clearly mentioned in the amended complaint as well as in the application that the shop in question was running for earn the livelihood and not for business purpose. The further argument of Ld. Counsel for the Ops is that shop of the complainant got fire due to some other reason and not due to electric short circuit or sparking. This argument of Ld. Counsel for the Ops has also no merit at all because the Ops have failed to produce any cogent and convincing evidence to prove their version. It was the duty of the Ops to produce the expert opinion of the technical person to prove their version but they have miserably failed to produce the same with the reason best known to them. On the other hand the complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record Annexure C14 Investigation report of ER. M.P. Sharma, Electrical and the proportionate para of his report is re-reproduced as below:-
“In my opinion, as per above facts the premises/owner of the shop of DHBVNL/MC authority. The fire was took place in the shop due to internal defects in the meter/flesh out/sparking/burdage.”
6. The further question arises to this complaint is that whether the complainant has suffered the loss as alleged by him in complaint?. The sought answer is yes because the complainant has successfully proved his case by placing on record Annexure C12 Photostat copy of list of items which came in to ashes due to short circuit which is sufficient to prove that the complainant has suffered heavy loss due to burnt of shop. In addition to this the complainant has also placed on record Annexure C13 Photostat copy of DDR recorded in the police to prove that the incident had taken place in the shop of the complainant due to electric short circuit. The complainant has also placed on record Annexure C1 & C17 Photostat copy of representation made to the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani as well as SDO, DHBVNL, Charkhi Dadri information regarding incident due to short circuit in the Shop, Annexure C2 to C9 Photostat copy of acknowledgements. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above it has been clearly proved that the stock/items lying in the shop of the complainant came in to ashes due to short circuit of electric meter installed in the shop of the complainant due to the negligency of the respondents and as such he is entitled compensation. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is allowed with costs and the Ops are directed to:-
- To pay Rs.8,87,369/- as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
- To pay Rs.2200/- as litigation charges.
The compliance of the order shall be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 5.8.2015.
Anita Sheoran) (Balraj Singh)
Member. Member.
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes Forum, Redressal Bhiwani. Redressal Forum, Bhiwani
