- ORDER -
(Passed on 10th December 2020)
Shri. Avinash V. Prabhune, Member –
Heard the Counsel for Complainant on dt 26.11.2020 but Counsel sought time to file documents & give additional submissions in the matter. Matter was again heard on dt. 03.12.2020 in length & perused the Complaint with all enclosed documents.
1. As per Complainant, the Complainant is the proprietor for Neha Traders & Electricals registered under shop & establishment Act in year 2016. The firm is involved in the business of selling building material & hardware items at Plot No 2, Panchtara Housing society, Beltarodi Road Nagpur as rented shop. Complainant had given averments in the complaint that she is running business with her husband for earning their own livelihood.
2. Complainant had electricity connection from OP No 1 & 2 as Consumer no 412730028772, which is in the name of Sh. Sarang Tatrachand Waghmare, owner of land. On dtd 16.06.2019 at around 0640 hrs, Complainant’s driver Sh. Raju Masram & one labourer saw fire due to short circuit at the street light pole, which further spread to electric meter of the Complainant through service cable. Fire further spread inside shop resulting loss of all hardware articles, building materials, Electronic items, Steel, Aluminum & plastic pipes, etc worth Rs 50,00,000/- to Rs. 60,00,000/-. Complainant’s husband informed about fire to police & fire brigade department. Fire tenders reported late & extinguished fire at around 0800hrs. Complainant lodged complaint with police on 16.06.2019 & Electrical Inspector, O.P. No 3 on dtd 26.06.2019. Complainant had sent letters to various higher authorities. Complainant had leveled various allegations against Police Officials, Beltarodi, Fire fighting department, O.P. 1 & 2, Electrical Inspector, O.P. 3 about collusion among themselves resulting non redressal of grievances of the Complainant in the present mater. Complainant had enclosed about 40 documents in support of the Complaint.
3. Complainant had prayed for confirming the deficiency in services & unfair trade practices of O.P. No 1 to 3. Complainant further prayed to award of Rs 18,00,000/- compensation for the loss suffered due to electrocution of shop, compensation of Rs 1,40,000/- for physical & mental agony & Litigation Costs of Rs 60,000/- including charges for Notice.
4. It can be seen that complainant is holding shop as tenant. It can be seen that although electricity connection is not in the name of Complainant but being beneficiary of the electricity connections, Complainant can be considered as ‘Consumer’ of O.P. No 1 & 2 towards ‘deficiency in services, if any. Complainant cannot be treated as consumer of O.P. No 3, Electrical Inspector as O.P. 3 cannot be held as ‘Service provider’ & allegations raised against O.P. 3 cannot be considered as ‘deficiency in services’ & ‘Consumer dispute’ between Consumer & Service provider to claim any compensation from O.P. No 3.
5. Complainant had filed present complaint against O.P. No 1 to 3 alleging deficiency in services & claimed compensation in view of the loss suffered due to fire accident dtd 16.06.2019. It can be seen that The Electricity Act 2003, Section 161, has specific provision related to Accidents in Electricity sector, inquiries to be conducted by Electrical Inspector, Industries, Energy & Labour Deptt., Government of Maharashtra, nominated by Appropriate Government. Electrical Inspector holding an inquiry so as to ascertain the cause of accident has all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects, and every person required by an Electrical Inspector is legally bound to do so within the meaning of section 176 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Electricity Act 2003, Section 161, relevant provisions are as below
161. (1) If any accident occurs in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in connection with, any part of the electric lines or electrical plant of any person and the accident results or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal, such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss or injury actually caused by the accident, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed, to the Electrical Inspector or such other person as aforesaid and to such other authorities as the Appropriate Government may by general or special order, direct.
(2) The Appropriate Government may, if it thinks fit, require any Electrical Inspector, or any other person appointed by it in this behalf, to inquire and report-
(a) as to the cause of any accident affecting the safety of the public, which may have been occasioned by or in connection with, the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity, or
(b) as to the manner in, and extent to, which the provisions of this Act or rules and regulations made thereunder or of any licence, so far as those provisions affect the safety of any person, have been complied with.
(3) Every Electrical Inspector or other person holding an inquiry under sub-section (2) shall have all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects, and every person required by an Electrical Inspector be legally bound to do so within the meaning of section 176 of the Indian Penal Code.
It can be seen from the letter dtd 26.06.2019, document No 9 filed with complaint, that Shri P M Chamat, Electrical Inspector, Industries, Energy & Labour Deptt , Nagpur had conducted enquiry of the accident on the basis of accident notice & report by MSEDCL, fire accident spot inspection, investigations & recorded statements. Electrical Inspector had finally given opinion that fixed reason for accident cannot be ascertained. It is pertinent to note that Electrical Inspector had not pointed out any negligence, lapses, deficiency, responsibility or shortcomings in maintaining safety of Electrical installation on the part of OP No 1 & 2, MSEDCL so as to cause accident. Commission is of the prima facie opinion that OP No 1 & 2 cannot be held deficient in services in the absence of any adverse findings against O.P. No 1 & 2 by the Electrical Inspector, competent statutory authority nominated for conducting enquiry for accident. Complainant had also not submitted any other cogent evidence to substantiate her allegations about O.P. No 1 to 3 or to counter the findings of the Electrical Inspector.
6. It can be seen that Complainant had submitted additional documents before commission on dtd 03.12.2020, Affidavit & statement of Shri Sarang Tarachand Waghmare, Landlord, Mrs Pushpanjali Sarang Waghmare, wife of Landlord & Shri Rajesh Shalikram Masram, driver. Commission notes that statements of Shri Sarang Tarachand Waghmare & Shri Rajesh Shalikram Masram were already submitted to Police Station, Beltarodi officials, who had conducted investigations in the matter. Moreover, considering the relations of the witnesses with Complainant, their witnesses cannot be considered as sole sufficient evidence to accept complainant’s claim.
7. It can be noted from Complainant’s letter dated 16.08.2020, document no 17 filed with complaint, that complainant had received letter dtd 27.07.2020 from Police station Beltarodi, wherein, it was informed that cause of fire was due to internal short circuit in the shop. Complainant had alleged deliberate omissions on the part of Police authorities in investigations but not submitted said letter dtd 27.07.2020 before Commission to verify actual contents of the letter.
8. It can be noted from the averments of the Complainant in para No 28, 29, 31, that complainant had made several allegations against O.P. 1 to 2, Electrical Inspector O.P. 3, Police officials of Beltarodi police station & Fire brigade officials regarding collusion with each other. It can be seen that none of the authorities had accepted any contention of the complainant as regards to fire accident.
9. The proceedings before Commission under the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are summary proceedings. Moreover, Complainant had levelled various allegations on factual aspects against all investigating agencies; therefore, it is not possible for this commission to ensure veracity of the allegations & to decide present complaint with available documents in the summary proceedings. Complaint cannot be entertained & deserves to be dismissed, hence dismissed. However, we grant liberty to the Complainant to seek redressal of her grievance before the appropriate authority/court in accordance with the law.
ORDER
1) Complaint is dismissed at admission stage.
2) Liberty is granted to complainant to seek redressal of her grievance before the appropriate authority/court in accordance with the law.
3) No order as to costs.
4) Certified copy of this order be supplied to Complainant.
