PER MR. JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

            Petitioner by way of present revision petition has challenged the ex-parte order dated 29.10.2010 passed by passed by Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (for short ‘State Commission’).  

2.      Brief facts of the case are that  petitioner filed a complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short ‘Act’) against respondents stating that he has an electricity connection installed in his cold store.  The meter of the cold store was burnt on 8.1.2004. Complainant deposited Rs.8,000/- with the respondents/ opposite parties for change of the meter.  The newly installed meter in place of burnt meter was a defective one and was not working properly as it was not giving any supply of electricity.  Respondent on the request of complainant checked the meter on 11.2.2004 and during checking CT/PT unit was not giving any potential and electricity was not passing through the meter and working of cold storage also closed.  This meter remained stopped for a period of 8.1.2004 to 20.2.2004 and during the period, complainant suffered  heavy losses as  the things/material stored was damaged and income of the complainant was stopped due to non-supply of the electricity.  In spite of non-working of the meter for the  period 8.1.2004 to 20.2.2004, complainant got electricity bill of Rs.5,850/- from respondents for without any using of electricity for the above said period, complainant has not consumed any electricity due to above said defective meter.  Hence, this complaint for quashing the demand of Rs.5,850/- with Rs.5 lakhs compensation for loss, Rs.50,000/- as mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses. 

3.      In their joint written reply, respondents admitted that the meter was changed on 13.2.2004 and the CT/PT was checked on 3.2.2004.  It was also admitted that  meter  remained stopped from 8.1.2004 to 20.2.2004.  Respondents have demanded Rs.5,850/- as monthly minimum charges of 540 units.  

4.          District Forum accepted the complaint of the petitioner and quashed the demand of Rs.5,850/- and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- for loss in the cold store of the petitioner, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. 

5.          Order of District Forum was challenged by the respondents and  State Commission, vide impugned order partly accepted the appeal and order with regard to the grant of compensation of Rs.3.2 lakhs was set aside.  However, the amount of costs of litigation and compensation was upheld.

6.      It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that it is an admitted fact that meter in question remained stopped from 8.1.2004 to 20.2.2004 and during this period, petitioner suffered huge loss as  things/material stored were damaged and income of the petitioner was stopped due to non-supply of the electricity. 

7.      It is further contended that petitioner had filed an affidavit in support of his claim before District Forum and on the basis of which  sum of Rs.3.2 lakhs for loss of material, was awarded.

8.      In entire complaint, petitioner has nowhere stated as to what things/materials were stored in his cold storage which were damaged due to stop of non-supply of the electricity.  Only averments made in this regard in the complaint read as under ;

“This meter remained stopped for a period 8.1.2004 to 20.2.2004 and during this period as mentioned in the head note of the complaint, the complainant suffered a heavy amounted loss as the things/material stored was damaged and the income of the complainant was stopped due to the non-supply of the electricity and other related losses were suffered by the complainant during the above said period.”

9.      It is well settled that pleadings are not to flow from the evidence but evidence is to be confined to the pleadings.  In the absence of pleadings, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered.

10.    In the entire complaint, petitioner has nowhere mentioned the nature of the things/materials stored in the cold store nor the quantity nor its value etc. 

11.    The State Commission rightly allowed the appeal of the respondents and dismissed the complaint giving cogent reasons for the same, which read as under ;

“16.  The respondent has not produced the account books in which the deposit of canes (pipas) by Lachman Singh was shown or whether the boxes of fruit deposited by Jit Singh were entered.  These are affidavits only.  These can be obtained at any time by the respondent.  Similarly, the details of the estimated loss Ex.C4 is also appears to be the guess work.

17.  The real loss could have been proved by the respondent after he produced the account books and other allied record that the fruit/goods/material kept in this cold storage of the respondent was shifted by their owners because of the non-functioning of the cold storage and the respondent has suffered the loss.  No such record has been produced.  Therefore, it cannot be held that the respondent had suffered the financial loss for non-supply of electricity for the period from 8.1.2004 to 20.2.2004.”

12.          Since, petitioner has neither pleaded about the nature/quantity of the articles/materials lying in the cold store nor it has produced any documentary evidence to this effect, we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by State Commission. 

13.          Present revision petition, in the circumstances, is not maintainable and the same is hereby, dismissed.          

Pending application also stands dismissed.

No order as to cost.