IA 18364 of 2018 (condonation of delay)

Since there is a delay of 23 days in filing of the Appeal, IA 18364 of 2018 is allowed and the delay is condoned.

-2-

        Appeal

Arguments on the Appeal are heard.            

This Appeal, under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act), has been filed against the order dated 24.07.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (for short “the State Commission”) in Consumer Case No.30 of 2016.   

The brief facts of the case are that the Complaint has been filed by the Appellant against the Insurance Company, Respondent No.1, and against the Surveyor, Respondents No.2 and Respondents No.3 and 4, who are the officers of the Electrical Department of PWD, (MSEDCL).  The Complainant had installed a drinking water and package industry at Vishnupuri Nanded and took an insurance policy from Respondent No.1 in the year 2011 and got it renewed every year.  The policy was lastly renewed in the year 2014 for fire and allied peril for the period from 25.05.2015 to 24.04.2016.  According to the Complainant, he used to visit the said factory after every 8 to 15 days.  He went to his factory on 13.02.2016 between 9:30 to 10 pm and noticed some smoke coming out through the shutter of his factory.  When he

-3-

opened the shutter of the factory, he found that the various machines in the factory had caught fire due to short circuit.  He called the fire brigade office but they did not reach at the spot.  He himself could not extinguish the fire with the motor of the factory as there was no electric connection.  All the machines including water filling, water pouch machine, R.O. with 2000 ltr. per hour, chemical lab, micro lab, empty bottle of 20 ltr. Each, plywood of ceiling, partition towards etc. gutted in the fire causing the loss of about ₹ 20 to 25 Lakh to the Appellant.  At 11 am on the next day, i.e. 14.02.2016, he informed the police about the incident of fire.  Police visited the spot and drew the panchnama.  He also informed MSEDCL on the phone about the incident of fire due to short circuit and apprised them of the loss sustained by him.  On 03.03.2016, the electrical inspector visited the factory, drew panchnama and recorded the statements of Junior Engineer and lineman of MSEDCL but the copy of the same was not given to him.  The Junior Engineer of MSEDCL also told him that the electric connection of the said factory was disconnected on 25.11.2015.  He informed the Insurance Company Respondent No.1 of the incident vide his application dated 17.02.2016. 

-4-

Respondent No.1 appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss and visited the factory on 21.02.2016 and asked for the documents.  On 17.03.2016, the Appellant submitted the insurance claim of ₹26,32,000/- along with all the documents.  However, his claim was repudiated.  On these facts, the Appellant had claimed in his Complaint an amount of ₹21,00,000/- with interest @ 22% p.a. from the date of incident till realization and a compensation of ₹1,00,000/- towards mental and financial harassment and ₹30,00,000/- as cost of litigation.  He also sought directions that the Respondent No.3 be directed to give him a new mater and restore the electric supply.

Respondents No.1 and 2 appeared before the State Commission and filed their Written Versions.  Respondents No.3 and 4 were ex parte.

In the Written Version, it was not denied that the Appellant was a holder of fire and allied peril policy for a total sum of ₹26,32,000/-.  It was contended that the claim of the Appellant was repudiated vide letter dated 05.01.2017 on the ground of non-submission of required documents despite nine reminders by the Surveyor.  Also that the Surveyor on his inspection in his report

-5-

had stated that the fire was due to short circuit had not been proved for want of any cogent evidence.  It was contended that MSEDCL had disconnected the electric connection on 25.11.2015.  Therefore, the short circuit could not have happened on 13.02.2016.  Then it was contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part. 

After recording evidence of the parties by way of affidavit and hearing the arguments, the State Commission formulated the issues and gave its findings and held that the Complainant had failed to prove his case that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and therefore, dismissed the Complaint.     

This order is impugned before me on the ground that the findings are perverse and that the fact that all the documents got burned in the fire was not given due consideration while rejecting the claim.  It is further submitted that the State Commission had failed to appreciate and consider the arguments, i.e., the electricity bill dated 29.01.2016 to prove that the electric connection was not disconnected.  Therefore the finding that there was no electric connection is contrary to the evidence on record. 

-6-

It is submitted that there was a fire in the premises and this had happened only due to short circuit and this fact has been ignored.

I have heard arguments and perused the relevant record.

Although the entire emphasis of the Appellant is on the document i.e. the electricity bill dated 29.01.2016, yet the said document is not placed on record while filing the present Appeal.  Also copy of the evidence led by the Appellant before the State Commission has not been placed on record.  When the learned Counsel began the arguments, no request for any adjournment for placing on record these documents was made.  As regards this document, there is a finding of State Commission which reads as under:

“As regards the complainants contention that the cause of fire to his factory was the electric short circuit.  However, as contended by opponent insurance company and also by the surveyor in his survey report, except bare statement of the complainant there is no any cogent evidence on record to prove that the said fire was due to electric short circuit.  According to the complainant the electrical inspector had visited his factory after the incidence of fire i.e. on 30.03.2016 and recorded the statement of Junior Engineer and lineman of MSEDCL, but no copy of the report was provided to him.  However, there is no record to believe that the electrical inspector had visited the site and recorded the statements of Junior Engineer, lineman etc.  It is further to be noted that as mentioned by the complainant in his complaint that the opponent No.3 i.e. Junior Engineer MSEDCL had told him about disconnection of the

-7-

electricity on 25.11.2015.  It is however the contention of the complainant that the opponent MSEDCL had issued bill dated 29.01.2016 showing the bill amount of ₹2,200/- during the period from 30.11.2015 to 31.12.2015, the copy of the said bill is placed on the record.  However, he has not produced electric bill pertaining to the earlier period and also for the period from 01.01.2016 to 31.01.2016.  Hence, only the bill dated 29.01.2016 is not sufficient to prove that there was electric connection on the date of incidence of fire.  It is also worth to be noted that the complainant himself has admitted in his complaint that the said factory was not in function.  The surveyors report also makes it clear that the said factory was not running since last two years and therefore the usage of electricity was not hence.”

Besides the fact that the Appellant has failed to discharge the initial burden placed upon him by the law, i.e., to explain the cause of fire, there are other facts which bely the arguments of the learned Counsel that there was a live electric connection in the premises on the date of incident.  The prayer no.2 in the Complaint reads as under:

“The non-applicant No.3 should be ordered to install new meter at the applicant’s place and also to re-connect the line”.

This very prayer shows that neither the electric meter was installed in the premises nor the line was connected with the electric supply, that is the reason that the prayer for installation of the meter and reconnection of the electric line has been made by the Complainant in his Complaint.  The argument of learned

-8-

Counsel that there was electric supply in the premises on the date of incident, therefore, falls on the ground.  I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the State Commission which is based on evidences on record.  The Appeal has no merit and the same is dismissed.