1 Sh. Jatinder Singh complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 sand 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein-after called as ‘the Act’) against S.D.O, P.S.P.C.L. Ltd. Sub Division, Tarn Taran and another (herein-after called as ‘Opposite Parties-Corporation’) on the allegations of deficiency in service and negligence with further prayer to pay Rs.18 lacs as compensation for causing fire in the shop of the complainant due to their negligence by not shifting the sparking meter from the inside wall to the outside wall of the shop of complainant; the Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.1 lac as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant besides Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.
2 The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant has been running a shop wherein he had installed cotton extracting machine which is the sole livelihood earning source of the complainant; that in the said shop, the complainant got a 3 phase electricity connection bearing No.T-22-SP-530514-H from the Opposite Parties-Corporation; that the complainant made so many representations to the Opposite Parties-Corporation to remove the electricity meter from inside the shop to outside wall as the electricity meter had been sparking very frequently and these sparks could result in a fatal accident at his shop as the shop was full of cotton and related material and was highly inflammable, but Opposite Parties-Corporation never bother the requests of the complainant in this regard; that on 7.10.2012, the shop of the complainant caught fire suddenly due to short circuit in the electricity meter and all the goods stored in the shop got gutted alongwith cotton extracting machine, cotton bales, generator, engine, electricity inverter, furniture and many other such goods and one of the labourer was also injured in the fire who was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran in serious condition; that the fire was so big that in a few minutes time, the whole of the shop was reduced to ashes and total loss suffered by the complainant due to fire was about 18 lacs and in this regard, the complainant also lodged complaint with Police vide rapat No.15 dated 8.10.2012 regarding the fire caused by the wires of Opposite Parties-Corporation in his shop; that the electricity meter installed in the shop of the complainant also melted in the fire and the electricity supply was also shut down due to the melting of the meter in fire; that the complainant filed an application for installing a new meter in place of the melted meter on 3.2.2013 and the new meter was immediately replaced on 14.2.2013 vide MCO No.83/100241 dated 4.2.2013 and fixed the meter outside the wall of the shop just to destroy the evidence that meter was ever installed inside the shop and also to satisfy the complainant so that he does not approach any further authorities for getting compensation and for complaints against the negligent staff of the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties went to every extent to disallow any compensation to the complainant; that the complainant is a consumer of the Opposite Parties as he was having electricity connection for his shop; that the Opposite Parties are guilty of malfunctioning, negligence, causing loss worth lacs and harassment to the complainant by not acting upon the applications and requests moved by the complainant to shift the meter from inside of the shop to the outside wall and as such, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties-Corporation and the Opposite Parties may please be directed to pay Rs.18 lacs as compensation for causing fire at the shop of the complainant due to their negligence by not shifting the sparking meter from the inside of the shop to the outside wall of the complainant; the Opposite Parties be directed to pay Rs.1 lac as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainant besides Hence the complaint was filed.
3 After formal admission of the complaint, notice was sent to Opposite Parties-Corporation. Opposite Parties-Corporation appeared through counsel on 26.3.2013, but despite availing sufficient opportunities till 9.5.2013, the written version by Opposite Parties-Corporation not filed and keeping in view the opportunities given to the Opposite Parties-Corporation, the defence of Opposite Parties-Corporation was struck off vide order dated 9.5.2013.
4 Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case. The Ld. Counsel for complainant produced affidavit of complainant Ex. C1 alongwith documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10 and closed evidence.
5. During the pendency of the complaint, opposite party filed a revision against the order dated 9.5.2013 vide which defence of the opposite party was struck off and also filed an application for condonation of delay in filing appeal but the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 3.3.2014 dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently revision was also dismissed as barred by time. The opposite party then filed a revision in the Hon’ble National Commission against the order dated 3.3.2014 and the Hon’ble National Commission vide order dated 6.7.2015 allowed the revision and condoned the delay in filing the revision before the Hon’ble State Commission and case was remanded back to the Hon’ble State Commission for decision of the revision on merits. Thereafter the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 6.8.2015 observed that no ground is made out to permit the opposite party to file written reply and as such, permission to file written reply cannot be granted to the opposite party at that stage and revision petition was dismissed accordingly.
6. Ld. Counsel for the opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Pawan Kumar A.A.E. Ex. OPs/1, affidavit of Sh. Mohit Bansal SDO Ex. OPs/2, affidavit of Sh. Tarlochan Singh Lineman Ex. OPs/3 alongwith documents Ex. OPs/4 to Ex. OPs/18 and closed evidence.
7 We have heard Ld. counsel for the parties and have gone through the file. Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that the complainant is running a shop of cotton extracting machine which is the only source of livelihood of the complainant and complainant is having three phase electricity connection at his shop and meter of the connection is installed inside the shop whereas as per rules, the three phase meter is to be installed outside the shop or premises. He further contended that he requested the opposite parties many times to shift the meter outside the shop as there was danger of sparking from meter which could lead to fire incident but no action was taken by the opposite parties inspite of many requests and letters. It was further contended that on 7.10.2012, due to short circuiting of the electric meter, fire started and cotton articles lying in the shop caught fire and every material lying in the shop including furniture, machinery and articles were destroyed in the fire incident though the complainant and many persons assembled at the spot tried their level best to save the articles but of no effect; that complainant immediately reported the matter to the police and Rapat No. 15 dated 8.10.2012 was registered and matter was also highlighted in the newspaper. He contended that report was immediately made to the opposite parties and even official of the opposite parties came to the spot and told the complainant to prepare the estimate of loss and file the documents for claim which would be paid with the approval of higher authorities. He contended that fire started due to short circuiting of electric meter and meter was completely destroyed and melted in the fire incident which clearly shows that due to deficiency on the part of opposite parties, the meter was not kept in proper form and meter was not changed though the same was not functioning properly and as such, opposite parties are responsible for fire incident and are liable to pay damages to the complainant. He contended that complainant visited the office of opposite parties many times and also wrote letters but of no effect. He contended that complainant filed an application for installing a new meter in place of melted or destroyed meter and meter was changed by the opposite parties on 14.2.2013 and it all shows deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties and non-payment of claim by opposite parties inspite of many visits and requests also caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such complaint is required to be allowed and opposite parties are required to be directed to pay the loss alongwith damages and litigation expenses as mentioned in the complaint.
8 Ld. counsel for opposite parties contended that complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act as the electric connection in question was a commercial connection as it was under S.P. category which means ‘Small Industrial Supply Connection’ for which three phase connection is issued and connection of the complainant was also three phase connection and as such, complainant is not consumer under the Act and complaint is not maintainable. He further contended that cause of the fire incident is not directly connected with the electric meter or electric supply given by opposite parties. Rather the fire incident occurred due to some sparks originated from the machinery installed inside the industry of the complainant because meter was not damaged in the fire incident and was working properly even after the fire incident for number of months and only in the month of Feb 2013, the meter developed defects and on the application of the complainant, the meter was changed in the month of Feb 2013 and before that the meter was proper and was giving proper consumption on the basis of which electric bills used to be issued and being paid by the complainant and as such, story put forward by the complainant that fire originated from short circuiting of electric meter is false and fabricated and the complaint is also false. He contended that stand taken by the complainant is also contradictory because in the complaint, the complainant stated that the fire started due to short circuiting of the electric meter but the complainant filed an application to the Chairman Punjab State Powers Corporation Limited Patiala stating that sparks started from wires lying outside the shop and the sparks fell inside the shop through roof and fire started. He contended that even the official of opposite parties visited the spot immediately on receiving information of fire incident and noticed that fire started in the back side of the shop and was coming towards front portion of the shop which also belie the story put forward by complainant in the complaint that fire started due to short circuiting of electric meter which was installed on the frount side of the shop. He contended that if the electric meter was destroyed and melted and electric supply was stopped then why the complainant did not file the application for change of electric meter on the date of incident i.e. 7.10.2012 and why it was filed in the month of Feb, 2013 and it shows that meter was not damaged in the incident and was working properly even after the fire incident and was giving proper consumption on the basis of which electric bills were issued which were paid by the complainant and it totally belie the story of fire incident given in the complaint and shows that complaint is false. He contended that complainant has not proved any application which he filed for change of electric meter nor he filed any report of surveyor assessing the loss and complaint is totally based on oral testimony of the complainant and his witnesses. He contended that the opposite parties are not responsible for the fire incident and is not liable to pay the loss and complaint is false and liable to be dismissed with special costs.
9 After going through the documents and the evidence produced by the parties on the file, this Forum is of the considered opinion that complainant has failed to prove his case on the file or to show deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. It is the stated case of the complainant that fire started from short circuiting of electric meter and fire destroyed every articles lying in the shop alongwith machinery, furniture etc. in which electric meter was also destroyed and melted and electric supply was stopped immediately. However, the opposite parties have proved an application given by the complainant to Chairman, Punjab State Powers Corporation Limited Patiala requesting for compensation on account of fire incident and this application is Ex. OPs/12 and bears the signature of complainant and is not rebutted by the complainant and in this application the complainant has alleged that the fire incident started due to sparking from the electric wires passing over the roof of the shop and the electric sparks fell inside the shop through tin sheets lying on the roof and fire started. This application shows that fire did not start due to short from circuiting of electric meter, rather the fire started due to sparking from electric wires passing over the roof of the shop. These two are contradictory propositions and make the case of complainant suspicious. Otherwise also, it is the clear cut case of the complainant as is mentioned in Para No. 5 of the complaint that the fire started due to short circuiting of electricity meter and it is further mentioned in Para No. 7 of the complaint that the electricity meter installed in the shop of the complainant also melted in the fire and it is mentioned in Para No. 8 of the complaint that electric supply also shut down due to melting of meter due to fire but complainant alleged in Para No. 9 of the complaint that he filed an application for installing a new meter in place of melted meter to opposite parties on 3.2.2013 which was received by opposite parties on 4.2.2013 and the new meter was installed on 14.2.2013. It means the electric supply stopped to the shop of the complainant because the meter was completely destroyed and have melted in fire incident and complaint further shows that supply remained discontinued till the month of February, 2013 as complainant applied for change of meter on 3.2.2013 and the meter was changed thereafter. However the evidence brought on the file by the opposite parties shows that meter remained in working condition even after the fire incident and was giving consumption on the basis of which electric bills were issued by opposite parties and same were even paid by the complainant and it falsify the cause of fire as given by the complainant. Opposite parties proved ledger of the electric account of complainant for the month of September 2012 Ex. OPs/4 which shows that the complainant paid bills up to meter reading 9340 for 174 units and status of meter is shown as ‘OK’. This ledger is of period immediate before fire incident as fire incident took place on 7.10.2012. Opposite parties also proved leger for the period October 2012 which is Ex. OPs/5 and it shows that electric bill was issued for meter reading 9340 to 9755 for 415 units and this bill was issued on 14.11.2012. This is for post fire period because fire incident took place on 7.10.2012 and it shows that meter was in functioning condition as status of meter was shown as ‘OK’. Opposite parties have also proved a ledger for the month of November 2012 Ex. OPs/7 and it shows that an electric bill for reading 9755 to 10316 for 561 units was issued to the complainant on 14.12.2012. Opposite parties have also proved the ledger for December 2012 Ex. OPs/8 and it shows that electric bill for reading 10316 to 10672 for 356 units was issued on 10.1.2013. Opposite parties have also proved ledger for the month of January 2013 Ex. OPs/10 for meter reading from 10672 to 10910 for 238 units and this bill was issued on 14.2.2013 and status of meter is shown as ‘OK’ because this reading is from 28.12.2012 to 28.1.2013 i.e. immediately before change of electric meter as alleged by the complainant because the complainant alleged that he filed application for change of meter on 3.2.2013. Opposite parties have also proved ledger for the month Feb 2013 Ex. OPs/11 which shows that meter was changed during this period as status of meter is shown as ‘C/O’. These ledgers belie the case of the complainant that meter of the complainant destroyed and melted in fire incident because if that had been so then meter would not have been giving consumption and complainant would not have paid the electricity bill if his industry or shop remained lying closed due to stoppage of electricity supply as meter was completely damaged and melted in the fire incident as alleged by the complainant but the factual position is different as discussed above, rather, complainant also alleged that he filed application for change of meter only on 3.2.2013. It shows that before filing of the application, the meter was working properly and was giving proper consumption on the basis of which, bills were issued which were paid by the complainant. It belies the contention of the complainant that fire started due to short circuiting of electric meter. Rather the report of the official of the opposite parties Ex. OPs/13, who immediately went to spot and found that the fire incident took place at the back side of shop and fire was coming towards front side which also belies the contention of the complainant that fire started due to short circuiting of electric meter. The opposite parties are responsible only up to electric meter and the maintenance of wiring after the electric meter is of the owner. As such, the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties, as the fire started not due to short circuiting of meter but from sparks emitted by the machinery installed in the factory. A newspaper report is proved on the file by the opposite parties as Ex. OPs/16 in which it is mentioned that cause of fire has still not been ascertained but it is expected that fire started due to spark from the machine. Likewise newspaper report is also proved by opposite parties as Ex. OPs/17 and it is mentioned in this newspaper report that some sparking started from the machine afternoon and sparks fell on the cotton and fire incident started. Opposite parties have also proved a newspaper report Ex. OPs/18 which shows that sparks emitted from naked wire and fell on the cotton and fire incident started which is contradictory to short circuiting of electric meter as alleged by the complainant. The complainant is also not consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, as admittedly the electric meter of the shop of the complainant is three phase electricity connection having Number T-22-SP-530514H. Moreover the electric connection of the complainant was “S.P. Category” Connection and the ledgers proved by the opposite parties on the file also show that the electric connection of the complainant was “S.P. category”. The opposite parties have proved the classification of consumers defined in regulation 4.3 under “condition of supply” Ex. OPs/15 and S.P. connection is defined as ‘Small Industrial Supply’. In case titled ‘U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. & Ors. (appellants) Vs Anis Ahmad (respondent)’ 2013(3) Consumer Law Today page 226. It was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this case under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that persons availing services for ‘commercial purpose’ do not fall within meaning of consumer and cannot be a complainant for the purpose of filing a complaint before the Consumer Forum. It further explained the term commercial purpose by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this case that complainants having electrical connections for industrial/ commercial purpose, they do not come within the meaning of ‘consumer’ as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and they cannot be treated as complainant. They are not entitled to file any complaint before the Consumer Forum. As such, the complainant also does not fall within the term of consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act and is not entitled to file the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act as the electric connection of the complainant was commercial connection being industrial connection.
10 The complainant has alleged that he filed many applications for shifting of the meter outside the building but no such application has been proved on the file. The complainant alleged that copies of the applications were lying in the shop which were also destroyed in the fire but in this eventuality, complainant should summon the applications from the opposite parties or could take their certified copies under the Right to Information Act.
11 In the light of above discussion, complainant failed to prove his case and is not entitled for the relief under the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is hereby dismissed. However, keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in Open Forum
30.3.2017
