Complainant Smt.Radha Bansal has filed the present complaint against the opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (for short, C.P.Act.) seeking necessary directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation on account of loss suffered by her due to fire occurred in her house due to short circuit of electricity alongwith interest @ 12% P.A. from the date of suffering loss till actual realization to her. Opposite parties be also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses, in the interest of justice.

2.        The case of the complainant in brief is that an electric connection bearing Account No.3001100243 has been installed in the name of Sh.Janak Raj and she had purchased the house in question from Janak Raj son of Roop Lal vide sale deed dated 13.12.2004 and living in the said house from the date of execution and registration of sale deed. She has been paying the consumption bills regularly to the opposite parties.  On 26.5.2014 her house caught fire all of a sudden due to short circuit of electricity connection installed in her house, which spread in the entire house within no time, and the entire house hold articles kept in the house were converted into ashes within no time. The fire was controlled after fighting with the same for more than two hours with the help of fire brigade. In this incident she suffered loss of more than Rs.7,00,000/-. Publication to this effect was also made in news papers. The matter was reported to the police and other authorities. Loss suffered by her was assessed by Tehsildar Pathankot through field revenue staff. Thereafter inquiry was conducted by ld. SDM Pathankot, which was sent to the ld.Deputy Commission Pathankot vide letter No.284/FRC dated 3.7.2014 and it was held that the reason behind this sudden fire is electric short circuit. Thereafter Ld. Deputy Commission Pathankot sent her original inquiry report alongwith applications for making payment of compensation for the loss suffered by her on account of short circuit of electricity to the Executive, City, PSPCL Pathankot vide endorsement No.669/FRC dated 11.8.2014, directing that compensation may be paid to her according the instructions of the Govt. under intimation to this office. In the above mentioned letter it has also been written that loss of Rs.7,00,000/- has been shown. A period of more than one year has been elapsed, but till today no action has been taken by the opposite parties. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.

3.       Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as such present complaint is liable to dismissal on this score only. On merits, it was submitted that there was no denial of fact that as per record of opposite parties electric connection bearing Account No.3001100243 (old G65CF481132PP) stands in the name of Janak Raj son of Roop Lal. Remaining allegations that complainant had purchased the house in question from said Janak Raj vide sale deed dated 13.12.2004 and was living in same house from date of execution and registration of sale deed, consuming electricity energy, paying its bills etc, regularly were denied. It was next submitted that if at all alleged occurrence took place due to short circuit, fault can not be attributed to opposite parties. Enquiry as alleged might have been done by revenue officials. Letter was also received from the office of Deputy Commissioner Pathankot in the office of Additional SE (City), PSPCL, Pathankot vide which he was directed to make payment of compensation as per directions of government to applicant. Enquiry was also conducted by officials of department on spot as well as in same vicinity and it was found that on alleged day there was sudden increase in voltage nor any of the meter installed in same area/same line caught fire or was burnt due to sudden increase in voltage. Even meter in the house in question in which complainant was residing was in proper order and was working perfectly which clearly shows that alleged accident might have been caused due to fault in wiring of house of complainant and as such opposite parties can not be held responsible for alleged accident. Nor opposite parties were liable to pay any compensation to complainant.  Since alleged occurrence has not been caused due to any fault of opposite parties as such opposite parties in no manner were responsible to make any payment to complainant. So, there was no question of any fault on part of opposite parties. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

4.  Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C16 and closed the evidence. 

5.       Sh.Sanjeev Kumar Saini S.D.O. PSPCL tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.OP1 and copy of memo No.814 Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence.

6.     We have examined all the documents/evidence produced on record and have also duly considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsels for both the sides, while adjudicating the present complaint. We find that the present complaint pertains to the release of ‘compensatory’ damages (by the OP Corporation) as duly assessed (by the appropriate District Field Functionary) Ex.C5 to Ex.C10 at the directives of the District Administration Authorities of the loss/damage caused to the complainant’s house/ house-hold & other goods etc by the accidental Fire alleged to have been caused by the electric ‘short circuit’ and attributed to ‘negligence & deficiency in service’ on the part of the OP Service Providers, who however refuse to accept any deficiency/liability on their part vide the corporation’s own investigation Ex.OP2.

7.          We find that the present complaint neither involves an ‘adjudicatory’ of the litigants ‘consumer rights’ nor an issue pertaining to an infringement of the same and as such the ‘lis’ does not fall within the statutory jurisdiction of the District forum(s)/Consumer court(s) under the applicable statute law. As per the available records, the matter in issue is under ‘titrating’ inter-se contest between the ‘District Administration’ and the ‘Power Corporation’ and we observe that it has been intentionally molested to give it the ‘hue’ of a consumer complaint. Moreover, the consumer courts are never framed to act as the ‘executing’ courts to enforce the orders of the district administrative authorities who are decidedly better equipped to ensure compliance of its own directives at the district level.

8.          Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to allow any furtherance (under the Act) of the complaint in hand and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no order as to its costs.

9.        Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.  

                   (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                      President   

Announced:                                                             (Jagdeep Kaur)

February,09 2016                                                             Member

*MK*