BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.292 of 2014

Date of Instt. 22.08.2014

Date of Decision :15.05.2015

Kamal Arora Advocate, son of Krishan Lal R/o 301/18, Deol Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, The Mall, Patiala through its Chairman/Managing Director.

2. Chief Engineer, (DS) North, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Shakti Sadan, GT Road, Jalandhar.

3. Senior Xen, Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Commercial Unit No.2, Under the Model Town Division, Buta Pind, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.SK Bajaj Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.DR Seth Adv., counsel for the opposite parties.

Order

J.S.Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is a practicing advocate at Jalandhar and he is bonafide member of District Bar Association, Jalandhar for last 30 years. The complainant is residing at H.No.301/ 18, Deol Nagar, Jalandhar. The said newly built house was purchased by the complainant jointly in name of himself and his wife, for the occupation for his family from the builder Surinder Pal son of Ram Saran Dass R/o 4, Kartar Nagar, Amritsar, through attorney Kartar Singh son of Gurdit Singh vide sale deed executed in favour of the buyers on 21.3.2003. At the time of purchase of house, an electric connection in the name of one Paramjit Singh was lying installed. Though the connection was lying in name of Paramjit Singh, but after the purchase of house, complainant and his family have been using the electricity provided by the opposite parties and have been making the payment of electricity bills regularly, thus they are the actual and lawful consumer of the electric connection bearing No.J-45PF-251414 and there exists relationship between the parties as of consumer and service provider. The opposite parties are the sole supplier of electricity in the State of Punjab and therefore, they are duty bound to keep and maintain service lines, transformer and other equipments and install the other equipments installed for the purpose of supply of electricity to its consumer. They are duty bound to keep maintenance and service of the instruments and cables, wires fetching electricity to consumer premises. The opposite parties are also duty bound to keep watch on the voltage level of supply, so that loss may not be caused to any consumer/person because of high voltage. Suddenly in the midnight at about 3.00 Am on 9.6.2013, when the complainant and his family members were in a deep sleep, they suddenly noted very high fluctuation in the voltage supply, as a result of which, fire broke out in the house of the complainant. The complainant and his family, with great difficulty escaped and came out of the house, which caught rapid fire in a span of few minutes. Fire brigade was also called and with the help and assistance of neighbouring and other persons, the fire brigade was able to control the said fire with great difficulty and efforts within a period of more than two hours, but because of rapid fire, which occurred due to fluctuation and high voltage of electricity, most of the electronic appliances like fridge, TV, AC, LCD, Geyser, computer and other house hold appliances including wearing appreals, beds, lap top, furniture, dining table were either completely destroyed-reduced to ashes. The building of the house was also damaged and it became unsafe for the re-habitation of the family. An investigation of the incident was conducted by the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar, with regard to fire report and they clearly observed that the incident has happened due to fluctuation of power supply and high voltage. A report was also lodged with the police authorities vide report dated 10.6.2013 and the enquiry officer also observed that the said incident has happened due to careless and negligence of the power corporation. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to pay him Rs.15 Lacs as compensation and further Rs.1 Lac as damages and Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply, inter-alia, pleading that the present complaint is not maintainable as the employees of the PSPCL are not to check the internal wiring inside the house of the complainant. The internal electric wiring inside the house might have been checked/repaired by some private electricians and the defect of short circuit has caused due to defect in the internal wiring inside the house and not because of any defect in the main supply or through electric meter or transformer of the PSPCL. The reason of fire was due to short circuit in the air conditioner and the curtains installed caught fire. As such, there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of the opposite parties. At the information of fire in the premises, the Junior Engineer, Sub Divisional Officer, the Executive Engineer and the Superintendent of the opposite parties visited and inspected the spot and they too did not find any fault of the PSPCL and the defect of short circuit has caused due to defect in the internal wiring inside the house. The complainant does not have any locus-standi to file the present complaint. As per record of the opposite parties, one Sh.Paramjit Singh is the actual consumer of the electric connection account No.PF25/1414 at present having sanctioned load of 5.55 KW in existence. The complainant has never got change of name of the electric connection either in his name or in the name of his wife. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C17 and evidence of the complainant closed by order.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.O1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O12 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The complainant purchased the premises in which the electricity connection in question is installed from it previous owner vide sale deed Ex.C3 alongwith his wife. So, after purchase of the premises/house in which the electricity connection is installed, the complainant has became consumer of the electricity connection in question. According to the complainant, on 9.6.2013 at about 3.00 AM when he and his family were in deep sleep, they suddenly noticed very hight fluctuation in the voltage supply, as a result of which, fire broke out in the house and it spread rapidly as result of which number of appliances, furniture etc were completely destroyed and further the house has also became unsafe for the re-habitation. According to the complainant, the fire broke out due to fluctuation in voltage and as such opposite parties are liable for the fire and damage caused due to it. Counsel for the opposite parties contended that the fire was result of short circuit in the air conditioner installed in the house of the complainant as result of which curtains installed nearby caught fire and then fire spread in the house of the complainant. He further contended that the fire was not result of any voltage fluctuation. We have carefully considered the version of both the parties. The complainant has placed on record cutting from certain newspapers. No value can be attached to the new items appearing in any newspaper as it is just hear-say evidence. The complainant has then placed on record, report of Municipal Corporation Fire service Jalandhar Ex.C10 and in clause No.7 regarding cause of fire, it is mentioned that as per owner written statement fluctuation of power supply and hight voltage was cause of fire. This version was given by the complainant himself and it can not be treated as independent report of municipal corporation fire service department. Complainant has then placed on record copy of DDR Ex.C11. DDR was again entered on the basis of statement made by complainant. He has not produced any expert witness to prove that the fire was result of voltage fluctuation or high voltage. On the other hand, opposite parties have placed on record copy of complaint register Ex.OP10 to show that on the date of incident no complaint regarding high voltage or fluctuation in voltage was received by power corporation. The opposite parties have also placed on record report of J.E. Ex.OP2 who visited the spot wherein it is mentioned that he inspected the meter and it was found intact and there was no sign of any spark. In the report, it is further mentioned that meter was single face of the capacity of 10-40 with load of 5.55 KW. In the report, it is further mentioned that the consumer has not got installed ELCB which is mandatory as per instructions of Chief Electrical Inspector. In the report, the J.E has further observed that in the house of the consumer three split AC are installed and all the AC must have been running on the same face. It is further mentioned by J.E in his report that due all the three AC on single face some loose wire resulted in spark due to which sub standard PVC wire got fire and fire reached the curtains and then spread in the house. So, as per report of J.E the fire was result of short circuit. Ex.OP3 is report of Assistance Executive Engineer and it is also to the same effect i.e the meter was intact and the fire broke out due to short circuit in the building i.e house of the consumer. There is no reliable evidence on record from the side of the complainant to prove that the fire in his house was result of any voltage fluctuation or high voltage as alleged by him. The power corporation is not responsible for the internal wiring of the house of the complainant. The fact that meter was found intact and there was no sign of spark in it clearly suggest that the fire in the house of the complainant was result of short circuit inside the house due to which the curtains caught fire and then the fire spread in house resulting in damage to the articles lying therein.

8. In view of above discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that complainant has failed to prove that fire was the result of any voltage fluctuation or high voltage. Consequently, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

15.05.2015 Member Member President