Per Mr.H.K.Bhaise, Hon’ble Member
1) The present complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he is the associate member of the O.P./Society and is residing in Flat No.A-901. On 3rd February, 2010, there was a fire at night time in Flat No.A-904. The said fire was extinguished by the Mumbai Fire Brigade. The Mumbai Fire Brigade carried detailed investigation and issued fire investigation report. In the said fire, Flat No.A-904 was completely gutted and damage was caused to the Flat No.A-901 of the complainant. As per the investigation report, the complainant suffered loss approximately to the extent of Rs.15,000/-. As per the report, fire alarm system and fire fighting wet riser system was not working properly on the day of fire. Therefore, the fire could not be controlled. Mumbai Fire Brigade authority directed to take stern action against the O.P./Society for not maintaining the fire fighting system in good working condition. The complainant incurred expenses of Rs.14,200/- for repairs of his flat. The complainant has requested the O.P./Society for reimbursement the same. He had several correspondence with the O.P./Society. The O.P. had not accepted the liability and declined to reimburse. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint for recovery of amount of Rs.14,200/- with interest. He has also claimed compensation of Rs.10,000/- for his inconvenience, harassment, mental anxiety and trauma and also cost of complaint Rs.10,000/-.
2) The O.P./Society denied all the averments of the complainant and took preliminary objection about the maintainability of the complaint before this Forum. According to the O.P., O.P./Society is not the service provider. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The managing committee members of the O.P./Society are the honorary members and they are not receiving any remuneration. The complainant is also not paying any remuneration to the society and he is only contributing the expenses of the society. The Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies Act is a special law and the jurisdiction of civil court is barred. Therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The O.P. is placing reliance on the judgment of our State Commission in the matter of Arvind P.Bhangui –Versus- New Sujata C.H.S.Limited, in F.A.No.A/11/945decided on 8th December, 2011, in which it is held that the dispute under the Co-operative Act can not be tried before the Consumer Forum. As per the Mumbai Fire Brigade report, the fire was confined to Flat No.A-904. The mosquito kit was heated and has fallen on bed thereby the fire was spread. The complainant is the associate member and the associate member has no right to file this complaint. The complainant himself opened the windows and door thereby allowed oxygen in the flat. The complainant is ignorant about the basic knowledge of fire fighting system and the fire was spread due to his action. The complainant has filed this complaint with oblique motive. Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
3) The bills produced by the complainant are bogus. As per letter of the complainant, repairs were completed before 1st June, 2011 and bills are dated 23rd September, 2011. As per Mumbai Fire Brigade report dated 28th October, 2010, the fire system was properly working. The letters produced by the complainant are fabricated. The complainant has lost the election of managing committee. The opponent had filed case for forgery against the complainant and his group before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 9th Court, Bandra and the Magistrate has issued process u/s 465, 420 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C. The order of Magistrate was maintained by the Sessions Court as well as by the Hon’ble High Court and now it is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The complainant himself has not attended any fire drill and he is unaware about it. Considering all these facts, complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
4) After hearing the complainant and the learned advocate for the O.P. and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.
POINTS
Sr. No. | Points | Findings |
1) | Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum ? | No |
2) | Whether there is deficiency in service ? | No |
3) | Whether the complainant is entitled for reimbursement and for compensation ? | No |
4) | What Order ? | As per final order |
REASONS
5) As to Point No. 1 to 3 :- There is no dispute that on 3rd February, 2010, there was fire at night time in Flat No.A-904 and the said fire was extinguished by the Mumbai Fire Brigade. According to the complainant, during that fire, damage was caused to his Flat No.A-901. For this purpose, the complainant has produced fire investigation report by Mumbai Fire Brigade dated 25th February, 2010. As per this report, riser system of the building was found not in working condition. The conclusion of the report was as under :
19) Conclusion | As per the statement of witnesses, circumstantial evidence and ruling out all other probable causes the suppose cause of fire is concluded “Defective Electric Circuit” i.e. Electric spark originated in the circuit came in contact with melted mosquito kit in a lighted electric plug and fallen on combustible materials like bed, which were close to proximity of electric circuit and rapidly spread due to furniture and other combustible materials kept nearby” |
From this conclusion of the fire brigade office, there was defective electric circuit and the fire was started at the centre portion of the bedroom of Mrs.Aditi Agarwal. The liquid in the liquid mosquito kit was exhausted and the kit was heated and melted and caught fire on the bed. This report was preliminary report. According to the opponent, detailed investigation was carried out and fire brigade office submitted report dated 28th October, 2010. Under this report, Mumbai Fire Brigade office submitted final report. As per this report, on 5th February, 2010, inspection was carried out and it was noticed that nobody including society members were aware of starting switch of the fire pump and working of the fixed fire fighting system. Hence, it was mentioned in the earlier report that fire fighting system was not in working condition. As per this report, nobody was aware about the working system and therefore it was mentioned that fire fighting system was not in working condition. It shows that fire fighting system was there but nobody could operate it for want of knowledge. The opponent has submitted that the fire fighting system was working. The contract was already given to Tee Pee Corporation. The opponent has produced letter from Tee Pee Corporation dated 15th May, 2010 showing that fire fighting system was in working condition in February-2010. Demonstration was organized on 14th February, 2010 in the society and many members were present. The maintenance period was for May-2009 to May-2010. It means that maintenance contract was already given to Tee Pee Corporation and there was no complaint. As per subsequent report from the fire brigade office, earlier report was given on the basis that nobody was aware about starting switch of the fire pump and working of the fire fighting system. The said report was preliminary report. After detailed investigation, fire fighting system was found working. Therefore, there is no evidence to corroborate the submission of the complainant that the fire fighting system was not working. On the other hand, subsequent report from Mumbai Fire Brigade office and from Tee Pee Corporation shows that the fire fighting system was working.
6) From the earlier fire brigade office report submitted by the complainant that the main cause of fire was due to spark in the mosquito kit in the flat of Mrs.Aditi Agarwal. The said Mrs.Aditi Agarwal is not the party before this Forum. According to the opponent/society, whether the committee members are responsible to maintain the fire fighting system can be decided only by the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and the Forum has no jurisdiction to decide it. For this purpose, the learned advocate for the O.P. has placed reliance on the judgment of our State Commission in the matter of Arvind P.Bhangui –Versus- New Sujata C.H.S.Limited, in F.A.No.A/11/945decided on 8th December, 2011, in which it is held that the dispute under the Co-operative Act can not be tried before the Consumer Forum and it is only for the Deputy Registrar of the Co-operative Societies. In this complaint also the complainant has submitted that the Society/committee members are responsible to maintain the fire fighting system. In view of the above cited judgment of our State Commission, this can be done only by Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies and not by the Consumer Forum.
7) According to the complainant, he has suffered damages of Rs.14,200/-. The same was repaired by him before 1st June, 2011. He has submitted the bills on record. On perusal of the bills those are dated 23rd September, 2011, the complainant has not produced the affidavit of those persons who had carried out repairs of the flat of the complainant. According to the O.P., those bills are bogus and the O.P. has brought the statements of those persons in writing on the said bill. The same are produced on record. It falsifies the statement of the complainant that the repairs were carried out before 1st June, 2011. The question arise, if the repairs were carried out before 1st June, 2011, then how the bills are dated 23rd September, 2011. Moreover, the persons in whose name the bills are given have stated that those were not issued by them. The complainant has not produced any other evidence to support the bills submitted by him. Therefore, it appears that the bills are bogus.
8) Thus, the evidence on record is not sufficient to show that fire fighting system was not in working condition. There is also no sufficient evidence on record to show that the complainant incurred expenses of Rs.14,200/-. Therefore, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1) Complaint stands dismissed
2) Parties are left to bear their own costs.
3) Inform the parties accordingly.
Pronounced
Dated 24th December, 2013
