DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

                                                                        Complaint No. 490

 Instituted on:   26.11.2018

                                                                         Decided on:     05.04.2021

Mohd. Shakeel aged 38 years son of Shadi & Shadi Chaudary, resident of Jmalpur, Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director, The Mall, Patiala.

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Sub Division City No.II Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

             ….Opposite parties. 

For the complainant:                   : Shri Sumir Fatta, Adv.              

        For the OPs                        : Shri Mohit Verma, Adv.

Quorum:   Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

                Shri V.K.Gulati, Member   

ORDER:  

Shri Jasjit Singh Bhinder, President

FACTS

1.             Shri Mohd. Shakeel,  complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties pleading that the complainant used to run a cloth shop in the name and style of New Fashion Collection  and the complainant is the sole proprietor of the firm and the complainant runs the shop for self employment.  Further case of the complainant is that earlier the shop was taken on lease by Mohd. Shamshad son of Faqiuria son of Abdulla resident of Mohalla Tibian Wala from Shafi Mohd. vide lease deed dated 5.12.2013 and the said lease was executed for the period from 10.12.2013 to 09.12.2023.  Thereafter the complainant entered into partnership business with said Mohd. Shamsad son of Mohd. In the shop mentioned in the name and style of M/s. Boota Cloth House vide partnership deed dated 11.3.2014.   Thereafter after the dissolution of the said deed, the complainant came into possession of the shop as detailed above and changed the name to M/s. New Fashion Collection. 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that in this shop an electricity connection bearing number 3001454946 was installed and the complainant had been paying all the bills of electricity to the OPs. The complainant used to switch off the electricity supply in the night when he goes home.  Further case of the complainant is that on 7.7.2017 the complainant received a telephone call from one Sabar at about 4/4.15 AM and he told the complainant that smoke is coming out from the shop and as such the complainant visited the shop and found that shutter of the shop was badly damaged by the heat of the fire, the whole shop was gutted by flames and the whole material lying in the shop had turned into ash.   Further case of the complainant is that the fire took place due to the negligence of the OPs as on the spot the joints of wires were loose. Further case of the complainant is that due to the fire incident the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.25.00 Lacs. The shop of the complainant was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. from the period from 30.1.2017 to 29.01.2018 and the insurance company paid Rs.17.00 Lacs to the complainant on account of damage to the shop due to fire.  The complainant lodged the claim with the Ops for damages and submitted all the documents, but the Ops failed to pay the claim.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Opposite parties be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of damages suffered by the complainant and further claimed Rs.1,00,000/- on account of mental tension agony and harassment and Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.

WRITTEN VERSION

3.             In reply filed by the OPs, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is not the consumer of the OPs as the electricity connection is running in the name of Saddiq Walalik under NRS category with a sanctioned load of 1.00 KW, that the complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and that the complaint should be dismissed. On merits,  it is admitted that the said connection is running in the name of Saddiq Walalik under NRS category with sanctioned load of 1 KW. As the complainant as well as lesser or lessee never informed to the OPs regarding the same till date and the OPs now came to know all the said facts from the present complaint and no such kind of document was ever given to the OPs. Further it is stated that the concerned JE Shri Pavitar Singh visited the spot for verifying the actual and factual position of the spot immediately after the incident and at that time, he came to know from the locality where the incident was occurred on 7.7.2017 that the incident occurred due to negligence of the complainant himself as the inverter battery was defective and the accident occurred due to blast of the defective inverter battery. It is stated further that the complainant has manipulated the entire story just to grab the money from the OPs. The other allegations leveled in the complaint have been denied.

EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

4.             The learned counsel for the parties produced their respective evidence.

5.             The learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant is running the shop under the name and style of M/s. New Fashion Collection where the electricity connection number 3001454946 was installed and the complainant had been paying all the bills of electricity to the OPs. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that on 7.7.2017 the complainant received a telephone call from one Sabar at about 4/4.15 AM and he told the complainant that smoke is coming out from the shop and as such the complainant visited his shop immediately and found that shutter of the shop was badly damaged by the heat of the fire. The learned counsel for the complainant has further argued that the fire took place due to the negligence of the OPs as on the spot the joints of wires were loose. Further  the learned counsel for the complainant has argued that due to the fire incident the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.25.00 Lacs. The shop of the complainant was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. from the period from 30.1.2017 to 29.01.2018 and the insurance company paid Rs.17.00 Lacs to the complainant on account of damage to the shop due to fire. As such, the complainant has prayed that the complaint be allowed and the Ops be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-.

6.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has argued that there is no document on the file to show that the fire took place due to short circuit and that the concerned JE Shri Pavitar Singh visited the spot for verifying the actual and factual position of the spot immediately after the incident and after verification he found that the incident occurred due to negligence of the complainant himself as the invertor battery was defective and the accident occurred due to blast of the defective inverter battery. Lastly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

7.             The learned counsel for the OPs has further argued that the connection of the complainant is under NRS category and his sanctioned load is 1.00 KW.  The learned counsel for the OPs has further argued that there is no evidence on the file to show that the fire took place due to short circuit.  Further there is no evidence on the record to show the complainant has suffered loss of Rs.25.00 Lacs. The learned counsel for the OPs has further argued that the complainant is liable to file a civil suit as there are complex questions of law and facts are involved.   

8.             To prove this case, the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit and has deposed as per the complaint. Ex.C-2 is the bill, Ex.C-3  is the copy of DDR, Ex.C-4 is record of fire station, Malerkotla, Ex.C-5 is legal notice sent to the PSPCL, Ex.C-6  is the report of Tehsildar in which it is mentioned that there was fire in the shop on 7.7.2017 and in the shop one AC and four fans were running and there was loss of Rs.25.00 Lacs as told. So it is clear that this report of Tehsildar is based on hearsay and in the report it is no where mentioned that how much goods were destroyed and how the Tehsildar calculated the loss of Rs.25.00 Lacs.

9.             It is admitted case that Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. has already paid an amount of Rs.17.00 Lacs to the complainant.  Had the loss been more than that the insurance company had paid then the cause of action is against the insurance company and the complainant could file a case against the insurance company to claim more compensation.  Ex.C-7 is also report, but nothing is mentioned as how loss of Rs.25.00 Lacs was calculated. Ex.C-8 is estimate of Wasim and Associates, Ex.C-9 is the bill, Ex.C-10 is the letter written by OP to the complainant,  Ex.C-11 is another letter, Ex.C-12 postal receipt, Ex.C-13 is the copy of letter, Ex.C-14 is letter written by the complainant to PSPCL, ExC-15 is letter of PSPCL, Ex.C-16 is letter wrote by the complainant, Ex.C-17 is postal receipt, Ex.C-18 insurance policy, Ex.C-19 is a writing, Ex.C-20 is newspaper cutting,  Ex.C-21 is again newspaper cutting, Ex.C-22 to Ex.C-29 are the photographs, Ex.C-30 is agreement, Ex.C-31 is also agreement and Ex.C-32 is dissolution deed.

10.           On the other hand, Ex.OP/2 is the letter written to the OP by the complainant, Ex.OP/3 is also letter, Ex.OP/4 is the report of JE wherein it is mentioned that the meter of the complainant is fitted outside the shop and the meter was in correct condition and fire not took place due to the short circuit. Ex.OP/6 is the affidavit of Er. Gamdoor Singh and Ex.OP/7 is the affidavit or Er. Pavitar Singh. 

11.           As already stated above, the complainant has stated that he has suffered a loss of Rs.25.00 Lacs and out of which, Rs.17.00 Lacs have been paid by the insurance company as the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company has insured the entire shop of the complainant. There is no evidence on the file that the fire took place due to negligence of the PSPCL.  The report of the J.E. is also on the file to show that there is no fault of the PSPCL.

12.           There is 1.00 KW load only in the shop of the complainant. One AC and four fans were running and all this shows that the complainant himself overloaded the electricity connection.  The connection of 1 KW cannot take the load of one AC and four fans and tube lights etc.  After fire the meter was found intact and  the fire took place due to the defect in inverter and battery, for which the PSPCL cannot be held responsible.  The report of JE Shri Pavitar Singh shows that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the complainant himself as the inverter battery was defective and the accident occurred due to the blast of the defective inverter battery and due to that reason the shutter of the shop was fully damaged with blast which clearly ample from the video/CD which is on record as Ex.OP/1.  

13.           From the above discussion, there is no evidence on the file to show :

a)             that the fire took place due to short circuit in the meter.

b)             that there is no evidence on the file to show that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs.25.00 Lacs.

c)                                     that the report of Tehsildar Ex.C-3 is based on hearsay evidence and does not contain how loss of Rs.25.00 Lacs was calculated.

14.           The shop of the complainant was insured with Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co. Ltd. for Rs.25.00 Lacs and the insurance company paid  claim amount of Rs.17.00 Lacs to the complainant. It was for the complainant to file a complaint against Bajaj Allianze General Insurance Co. Ltd. for more claim and not against the PSPCL.

15.           In view of our above discussion, we find no fault on the part of the PSPCL. As such, the complaint is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A certified copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost as per rules. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced.

                        April 5, 2021.

(Vinod Kumar Gulati)  (Jasjit Singh Bhinder) 

           Member                 President