BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:24/2021

DATED: 27^th  July 2022

PRESENT: -     Sri. M.I.SHIGLI. B.A., LL.M.,       PRESIDENT

                        Sri. G. SREEPATHI, B.COM., LL.B., MEMBER         

                     Smt. B.H. YASHODA.    B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER

:ORDER:

Sri. M.I.SHIGLI. B.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT  

The present complaint is filed U/s 35 of CP Act 2019 against the OPs claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and other incidental claims, on the happening of event dated 01/06/2020 at about 2.30 pm hours on account of power fluctuations, where household utensils were gutted down.

BRIEF FACTS OF CASE :

 1. That on 01/06/2020 at about 2:30 pm. When the complainant was in his house, the electrical utensils of his house caught fire, leading to the damage of fridge, fans, TV Sets etc.,

2. It’s is alleged that, the accident has happened due to electrical Line from Hanumali Village passed through Dogganal Village  and Said Line was cut down on the ground, as a result of which in Dogganal village 11 LT installations met with electrical accident all out of negligence and deficiency of service on the past of OPs. The complainant’s electrical appliances were burnt and he wherefore he sustained damage of utensils worth Rs.1,50,000/-.

It is stated that, the complainant has lodged a complaint before the jurisdictional police in this regard on 02/06/2019 and has stated that, he is the consumer of the service of OPs, and is stated to be entitled to the compensation.   

3. The OPs on service of notice of this complaint, made their appearance through their council, and OP No.3 chose to file its version, which is adopted by OPs No.1, 2 and 4. The OPs have seriously disputed the maintainability of complaint, as the dispute does not fall within the preview of CP Act 2019. Though the tone and tenure of OPs objection is denial of the averments, but at para 9 and 14 of their version have categorically admitted the happening of the incident on 01/06/2019 at 2.30.pm and have stated that “……… this accident is due to unnatural happenings and there is no negligency of deficiency of service on the part of OPs”.  

4. Its furthers stated by OPs that the Superintend of Engineer, BESCOM, Davanagere has sanctioned Rs.13,580/- vide order dated 11/10/2019, and the complainant has accepted this amount of Rs.13,580/- as full and final settlement of all claims, and hence prayed to dismiss the complainant.

5. On the case being set for evidence, both parties have lead their respective evidence and got marked some documents on their behalf. Both counsels have submitted their oral and written arguments to substantiate their respective stand.

6. Having heard the submissions of both parties and materials on record the following points arise for our consideration Viz.,

i) Whether the complainant prove deficiency of service on the part   

    of OPs and consequently entitled to claim compensation of
          Rs. 1,50,000/-( one lakh fifty thousand )

ii) What is order?

7. We shall not be oblivious of the fact that, though the parties to the litigation are at loggerheads in respect of making good the loss, occurred on 01/06/2020, there is consensus as to the unexpected,   event, leading to the damage to men and material of Dogganal Village of Holalkere Taluk.

8. The document at Ex.B-1 produced by the OP-1 to 4 it self is sufficient narrating this fact. Added this, our attention is drawn to para 9 and at para 13 of the version filed by the OPs, which is the implicit admission on the part of the OPs. Howerver it is their contention, that, the event is “due to natural calamity” and “it is noticed that, the CFR relay was not tripped and this accident is due to unnatural happenings, and there is no negligency or deficiency of service  on the part of opposite parties’’

9. The analysis of the facts and figures pleaded and produced, synthesise the theory, that how best the grievance could be ameliorated. The complainant has brought to the notice of this commission, the much needed documentary evidence by production of Ex.A-1 to A-9.

10. Though the complainant has asserted  in his complaint that the shock was due to negligent act of the OPs but, he has not pleaded in his complaint, that which act of the OPs amounted to negligence, and which gives right to claim compensation for the actionable wrong.

11. An interesting part of the submission of the counsel for the OPs that, the complainant has received the compensation amount of Rs.13,580/- and for the loss of the property loss. The bills marked at Ex.A5 to A-8 (Consisting of 04 bills) marked without any objection. And these bills are prior to the date of execution of Ex.B-6 & B-7 which are said to be bonds for having received by complainant towards full and final settlement of claim. The counsel for complainant argued that these documents at Ex.B-6 & B-7 came into existence at later point of time. It’s noticed that Ex.B-07 is separate sheets annexed to Ex.B6 and is undated. And counsel for complainant argued that these are hushed up documents and cannot preclude the complainant from claiming the compensation to which he is legally entitled to. However we find some forces in his submission, for the simple reason that Ex.B-6 is the copy of the non-judicial bond dated 04/11/2019 But Ex.B-7 is annexed papers to Ex.B-6 which do not bear any date and is not paginated consecutively. In view of the same we are of the opinion that, alleged execution of documents of Ex.B-6 & Ex.B-07 cannot be accepted.

12. The counsel for the Ops has relied upon an authority reported in 2020 (3) CPR 64 NC. Wherein a reference is made to the ratio. In United India Insurance Company Vs Ajmer Singh 1999 (6) SCC 400. Its observed therein as “…..However (Sic so) where such discharge voucher proved to have been obtained under any of the suspicious circumstances noted herein above, the Tribunal or the commission would be justified in granting the appropriate relief under the circumstances as noted earlier. The consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and Commissions constituted under the Act shall also have the power to fasten liability against the insurance company notwith standing the issuance of discharge voucher”.

 13.  The learned counsel for OP has cited a similar authority reported on 2014 NCJ 277 (HC) This also force us to infer a fact that, and the above referred authority cannot be applied here, on the premise that the execution, of discharge voucher is itself seriously disputed by the complainant and OP has failed to prove its due execution.

14. In view of the above facts and circumstance there is no need to suspect the version of complainant. And the OPs are legally bound to disburse, these expenses, which is not disputed.

We are of the considered opinion that, the OPs shall be bound to reimburse these expenses, subtracting the compensation amount which is already disbursed that is, 

44,410

      -13,580    (As per Ex.B-6 &7)

30,830

This balance amount of Rs.30,830/- carries 12% interest from the date of petition till its realization.

Hence. For the detailed reasons we proceed to pass the following;

::ORDER::

        The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is Partly allowed.

The OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of
Rs. 30,830/- with 12 % interest from the date of petition till its realization, within 30 days from the date of this  order.

        Communicate the order to parties.

(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on 27th July 2022.)

LADY MEMBER                   MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:- Sri. T.B.Jayappa S/o Basappa

PW-2:- Dr. Gururaja Meravanigi

Witnesses  examined on behalf of opponents:

DW-1 to 4 :- C. Nagarajappa S/o Chandrappa,

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents marked on behalf of opponents:

LADY MEMBER                   MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

GM