Rajiv Vohra complainant has filed the present complaint against the titled opposite parties U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter for short, the C.P.Act.) in which he has prayed that the opposite parties be directed to pay Rs.2,90,000/- as compensation for the details written in para no.6 of the complaint, scootery and car shed and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him with interest @ 18% from the date of loss till the realization of the amount and any other order as deems fit may also be passed in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a practicing lawyer. He s consumer of the opposite parties vide Account No.GM43MF481607Y and its connection load is approximately 5.KW. On 17.08.2018, due to short circuiting of electric naked wires passing through his house, his car bearing registration No.PB06Y0507 Model 2013 and Scooty bearing registration No.PB06W4916 was burnt and damaged due to short circuiting of electric wires/naked cables which was the sheer negligence of opposite parties. The shed where the car and scooty were parked caught fire due to the short circuiting of naked wire of cables which was extinguished by the fire brigade called by employees of PCR on duty. He had numerous times lodged the complaints to the opposite parties in black and white regarding the naked wires of cables passing through car shed as he had apprehension of unwanted incident but of no avail. Due to the utter negligence of the opposite parties his shed , car and scooty was burnt and reduced into smithereens. Non change of cable naked wires inspite of lodging complaint is deficiency of service by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their written reply submitting therein that PVC wires are passing through the street and not through the house of the complainant. There is no loss of the complainant. There is only one complaint of the complainant on 17.8.2018 and that was resolved for the OK supply. There is no damage to the car and scooty of the complainant. All other averments made in the complaint have been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with heavy costs.
4. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his own affidavit Ex.C-1 alongwith photocopies of document Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-14.
5. On the other hand, alongwith the written reply filed by opposite party, they have filed copies of document Ex.OP-1.
6. The case of the complainant in brief is that on 17.8.2018 due to short circuiting of electric naked wires passing through the house of complainant, the car of complainant bearing registration No.PB06Y0507 Model 2013 and Scooty bearing registration No.PB06W4916 was burnt and damaged as the shed under which these vehicles were parked, caught fire due to naked wires of electricity passing through the house of complainant. Even Fire brigade was called to extinguish the fire and the matter was also reported to Police and a General Diary Report was entered. As per version of complainant it all happened due to negligence of Ops as the complainant had intimated them so many times in writing to take action in regard to naked wires but Ops did nothing in time and he had to suffer huge loss due to negligence of Ops.
7. The fact regarding incident of fire is denied by Ops in its written reply para no.2. It is categorically stated that PVC wires are passing through the street and not through the house of complainant. But complainant had produced Ex.C5 the copy of GDR dated 17.8.2018 which proves that the naked wires pass from above the shed where car and scooty of the complainant was parked . Due to sparking in the wires, the shed caught fire and the car and scooty parked under the shed got damaged. The complainant had produced other documents to prove that vehicles were repaired and complainant had to suffer financially due to this unpleasant incident. Complainant had also produced Ex.C-3 and C-4 to prove that Ops were requested earlier to resolve the complaint regarding naked wires but nothing was done in this regard. If we see these two documents then we find that these applications are not received by any authority of PSPCL. No official stamp is put there to prove that PSPCL authorities were informed about this. It seems to be an afterthought by complainant just to strengthen his complaint. So, these documents are not reliable.
8. Further the complainant has placed on file Fire report Ex.C-6 to prove that incident of fire took place. In this document reason of fire is mentioned as electric short circuit and estimated loss is mentioned as Rs.2,00,000/- (as per FIR) But if we see the copy of GDR produced on the file as Ex.C-5, the police has mentioned that some damage has been caused to the car and scooty of the complainant as paint of the car has got damaged but no amount of loss has been mentioned. Complainant has produced Bills regarding repair of the car. Ex.C-11 and Ex.C-12 prove that the parts described in the bill were purchased for the repair of the vehicles, mentioned in complaint. Other bills are not reliable as they do not properly prove that what was the part and for what purpose it was purchased?
9. Ops have placed Ex.OP-1 which proves that incident of fire took place. In this document under the Head “history of complaint” wire burn at the shed urgent org closures” This document of Ops itself proves that wire was burnt at this place and Ex.C5 GDR proves that due to fire in wires, the car and scooty of the complainant got damaged. Moreover, Ops have not produced any document or any photograph to prove that wires were passing through the street. Simply taking objection in written reply without any cogent evidence is not sufficient to prove the version of OPs and in this way the allegations made by complainant are proved.
10. Now the question arises that what is the actual damage to which the complainant is entitled? For this, we would like to discuss here that complainant has not produced any photograph of the damaged vehicles or any expert report measuring the loss to the vehicle. In the absence of any expert report or estimate regarding loss to the vehicle, we are left with no other option but to consider those bills which are authenticated and prove that these parts were used in the repair of car and scooty respectively. Ex.C-8, C-9, C-11 & C-12 are the bills proving the same. The incident of fire in wires took place on 17.8.2018. It proves that after the loss occurred to these vehicles, the same were got repaired as the bills are dated 11.9.2018 and 3.9.2018. These bills amount to Rs.880/- + Rs.100/- + Rs.603 + Rs.29,400/- = Rs.30,983/-. In this way if complainant is entitled to any damages only the amount of Rs.30,983/- could be granted. Ex.xC-10 is another bill of Rs.10,800/- but it is not clearly mentioned on this bill that which item was purchased and for what purpose. In this way complainant is entitled to receive only Rs.30,983/- by the Ops.
11. From above all discussion, it stands fully proved that complainant suffered loss to vehicles due to fire in naked wires and Ops i.e. PSPCL is liable to make good the loss as the Ops are responsible for the proper maintenance of electricity wires and due to their deficiency in service, this unpleasant incident happened.
12. In view of above, we hold that complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.30,983/- as damages done to the vehicles and further Ops are directed to pay Rs.30,983/- to the complainant. Ops are further directed to pay Rs.5000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony to the complainant.
13. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. The complaint could not be
decided within prescribed time due to rush of work.
ANNOUNCED: (Shri Raj Singh) (Rajita Sareen)
September 02, 2019. Member Presiding Member
MK
