BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 425 of 2015
Date of Institution: 6.7.2015
Date of Decision: 11.07.2016
Sh.Satpal son of late Shri Harbans Lal, resident of H.No. 462/9, Gali Mochiyan, Katra Khazana, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala
- Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its SDO/XEN, Sultanwind Sub Division, Amritsar
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date.
Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Rajesh Bhatia,Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Sh.N.S.Sandhu,Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Mr.Anoop Sharma, Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Sat Pal has brought the instant complaint under section 12 & 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 on the allegations that complainant is permanent resident of H.No. 462/9, Gali Mochiyan, Katra Khazana,Amritsar and is a law abiding citizen of India. The complainant is carrying on his business of Baardana at shop No. 29-30, Outside Bhagtan Wala Gate, Amritsar under the name & style of M/s. Harbans Lal Satpal and the complainant has been carrying on the said business in the shop for the last so many years. An electric connection bearing account No. C36CW480033Y had been installed in the shop of the complainant. The complainant has been paying the bills of electricity regularly to the opposite party. The connection was installed in the premises for the last so many years. On 2.3.2015, 3.3.2015 and 4.3.2015, there has been some fault in electricity supply and there was no supply of electricity in the said area, where the shop of the complainant is situated. In this regard officers of PSPCL were informed by various persons of the locality. On 5.3.2015 at about 4.00 a.m complainant received a telephone call from the watchman of the area that the shop of the complainant has caught fire. The complainant immediately informed the fire brigade and reached at his shop. Fire brigade extinguished the fire in the shop of the complainant at about 6.30 a.m. on 5.3.2015. After extinguishing the fire, it was enquired that the said fire was caught due to the short circuit of electricity. It was found that after three days of non supply of electricity, when PSPCL released the power supply, they released heavy voltage of electricity , due to which short circuit occurred in the premises of the complainant and the goods of Baardana lying in the shop of the complainant caught fire. In the said fire Baardana, fans, wiring and other shop material were burnt and the complainant suffered a loss of approximately Rs. 5 lacs. Loss has been caused to the complainant due to the negligence in service on the part of the PSPCL authorities. Matter was also reported in the local newspaper. The complainant, as such, is entitled to compensation from the opposite party. The complainant prayed for the following reliefs vide instant complaint :-
(i) Opposite parties may be directed to pay Rs. 5 lacs to the complainant for the loss occurred to him due to negligence in service on the part of the opposite party .
(ii) Compensation which the Forum fit may also be awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that complaint as framed is not maintainable ; that complainant has got no cause of action or locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposite parties. On merits, it is stated that electric connection bearing account No. CW48/0034 has been installed in the name of Sh. Harbans Lal. It is further stated that as per report made by the JE dated 7.9.2015, the meter in question is installed in the pillar box and the electric supply was running regularly. It is specifically denied that on 2.3.2015, 3.3.2015 and 4.3.2015 there was some fault in the electricity supply . It is further denied that there was no supply of electricity in the said area, where the shop of the complainant is situated. It is further stated that no complaints regarding non supply of electricity were received from some persons It is specifically denied that on 5.3.2015 at about 4.00 a.m., the shop of the complainant caught fire due to the short circuit of electricity. It is submitted that the shop of the complainant might have caught fire due to internal wiring problem in his premises. There are several other shops and houses in the said area and there was no other complaint of any other consumer regarding fire due to short circuit of electricity. It is denied that after three days of non supply of electricity, when the PSPCL released the power supply, they released heavy voltage of electricity and due to which short circuit occurred in the premises of the complainant and the goods of Baardana lying in the shop of the complainant caught fire. It is submitted that the said fire occurred due to the internal problem in the wiring of the complainant or due to some other reason in the premises of the complainant. It is also denied that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 5 lacs in the fire incident in dispute. It is also denied that complainant had suffered due to negligence in service on the part of PSPCL. It is stated that instant complaint has been filed without any cause of action and the same merits dismissal accordingly.
3. In his bid to prove the case Sh.Rajesh Bhatia,Adv.counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-1, copy of certificate issued by Sewa Society Fire Brigade Ex.C-2, copy of electricity bill Ex.C-3, photographs Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-11, letter dated 14.3.2016 Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-14, affidavit of Sh.Manjit Singh son of Harbhajan Singh Ex.C-15 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence, Sh.N.S.Sandhu,Adv.counsel for the opposite party tendered affidavit of Sh.Harbhajan Singh,SDO (Tech) Ex.OP1, copy of checking report Ex.OP2, copy of memo dated 5.8.2015 Ex.OP3, copy of details of complaint Ex.OP4 and Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite party.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file.
6. Ld.counsel for the complainant on the basis of the evidence on record has vehemently contended that it is not denied that premises of the complainant were having electric connection bearing account No. C36CW480033Y which is running at the spot in the shop in dispute since long. It has further been contended that from 2.3.2015 to 4.3.2015 , there was fault in the electricity supply and no supply of electricity in Bhagtan Wala area was available during those dates. It is further contended that on 5.3.2015 at about 4.00 a.m. complainant received a telephonic call from the watchman of the area that shop of the complainant has been gutted in fire. The complainant immediately informed the fire brigade which reached at the spot and extinguished the fire at about 6.30 a.m.. After extinguishing the fire , it transpired that the fire was caught due to short circuit of electricity because when on 5.3.2015 the officials of PSPCL released the electricity, it was high voltage due to which fire incident took place in the premises of the complainant on account of short circuit. The complainant was running a Baardana business in the shop in dispute and goods worth Rs. 5 lacs were burnt to ashes in the fire incident in dispute. Counsel for the complainant has vehemently contended that the loss has occurred to the complainant due to negligence/deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and the complainant is entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs from the opposite party . Besides that complainant is also entitled for grant of litigation expenses to be assessed by this Forum in accordance with law.
7. But, however, from the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that complainant is not proved to be a consumer of the opposite party. The electric connection in dispute is in the name of one Harbans Lal, whereas complainant’s name is Satpal. Although Harbans Lal is the father of the complainant, yet the complainant has not got himself mutated as consumer with the opposite party , for the reasons best know to him. Reliance in this connection can be had on Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd. Revisionist Versus Ashish Kumar Respondent in Revision Petition No. 01 of 2013 decided on 22.3.2013 of the Hon’ble Uttarakhand State Commission, Dehradun wherein it has been held that:-
“Electricity connection is in the name of father of complainant and he has not got the connection transferred in his own name, complaint filed and held that there being no privity of contract between the consumer and the service provider, the complainant is not a consumer of the revisionist.”
The complainant cannot be presumed to be a consumer under the opposite parties when no contract agreement was executed by the complainant in favour of opposite parties i.e. PSPCL.
8. Not only that the complainant has failed to adduce any evidence on record to prove that any Baardana to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs was lying in the shop in dispute on 5.3.2015 i.e. when the fire incident took place. No stock register has been produced on record for the reasons best known to the complainant. Mere relying upon the photographs which account for Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-11, it cannot be ascertained that alleged loss to the complainant, was to the tune of Rs. 5 lacs or to some lesser amount. This shows that the complainant is guilty of with-holding the best evidence in his possession from court scrutiny. As such an adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the complainant under section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The allegation of the complainant that the fire incident took place due to high voltage supply on 5.3.2015 by the opposite party, is also not tenable because in the near vicinity no such incident has taken place. As the electric connection in dispute having been installed outside the premises of the complainant , the fire incident might have occurred due to short circuit of the internal wiring in the shop of the complainant. In such circumstance no negligence can be attributed to the opposite party. Consequently instant complaint is meritless and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 11.7.2016
/R/
