ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.

            The complainant is the proprietor of M/s. Sajeev Medical Store, Paravur and he has been conducting the same since 1980.  The said medical store has been functioning in a double storied shop room bearing No.PMC/XIII/341 $342, which is his sole livelihood.  There are two refrigerators in the shop room for keeping certain medical properties, which have to be kept in cold storage.  Hence those two refrigerators are functioning round the clock.   At the time of closure in the evening all the other electrical equipments such as lights, fans, AC except  those refrigerators will be switched off regularly and without fail. There is an electric connection to the said shop room vide Con.No.4365 supplied by the office of the 2^nd opp.party under the supervision and control of the 2^nd opp.party.  The complainant has been paying all the intermittent demands of the opp.parties for maintaining the electric connection properly, apart from the due  payment of electricity bills.   Accordingly the opp.parties are supposed to conduct periodical inspections and maintenance of the electrical installations in the shop room.   And they are also bound to given appropriate timely advises to the complainant in keeping the electric connection risk free..  While so, on 6..11.2006 at about 9.30 P.M. the complainant closed the said Medical store as usual leaving the said two refrigerators to be worked throughout.  On the same night by about 4 A.M. [that is on 4 A.M. on 7.11.2006] complainant was informed by the younger brother that he was informed by the night patrolling Police part that smoke is eminating from inside the shop room.   Accordingly the complainant rushed to spot and opened the shop room and it was found that the refrigerator situated in the ground floor caught fire and sever smoke was also eminating out of it .  Immediately the fire spread out in a rapid manner and even though the onlookers including the police part attempted to defire the shop room it turned to be in vain as the spreading out of the fire was so severe and heavy.   Though timely information was given to the fire force at Kollam and Varkala by the time they arrived the spot all the belonging of the complainant in the shop room are completely swallowed by the fire.  Due  to the aforesaid fire incidence, the complainant sustained a minimum loss of Rs.41.70  lakhs]  Consequent to the incident, it was reported to the Local Police and a crime was registered vide Crime No.364/2006 of Paravur Police Station for fire occurrence and after investigation the Paravur Police Sub Inspector on 7.12.2006 submitted a final report before JFMC, Paravur, stating that as per the report submitted by the Electrical Inspector concerned, the occurrence was due to electrical fault.  The Electrical Inspector submitted a report on 10..11.2006 before the Circle Inspector of Police, Paravur wherein it is stated that immediately before the fire incidence there is at about 2.44 A.M. the Bhoothakulam feeder was ‘tripped off’ and it became live in the next minute itself.  It is further reported that in such situation electrical equipments and their related switching equipments will operate unusually and his conclusion regarding the incident was that electrical fault might have been the reason for the said incident.  Due to the lack of the opp.party in keeping the supply circuit  to the complainant’s shop room and its installation in a proper manner, the fire incidents occurred and thereby the complainant sustained a material loss of Rs.41.70 lakhs as stated above.  In such circumstances complainant to approach this Forum to make good the loss sustained to the medical shop due  negligence of the KSEB which is deficiency of service.   Even though  the complainant sustained a loss all together for 43 lakh the complainant limiting my claim to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs for an amicable solution.

          The opp.parties filed version contenting, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.   The complainant does not come under the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2[d] of the Consumer Protection Act as he is using the electricity for a business purpose for earning profit    Hence the complaint is to be dismissed in limine.  The complainant has not produced any document to prove annual turnover or the daily stock in the shop  As per Section 21 1[a] of the KSEB Terms and conditions of supply does not accept any responsibility with regard to the maintenance or testing of writing on consumers premises after first inspection for energisation. .  The complainant allegation that the opp.parties are supposed to conduct periodical inspection and maintenance of the electrical installation in the shop room and the opp.parties are also bound to give appropriate timely advises to the complainant in keeping the electric connection  risk free are raised only for the sake of the suit and without bonafides.  In the first information statement given to the Police complainant had admitted that the refrigerator from which smoke emirated  was very old one and the cause of the fire might be due to the short circuit of the compressor of the very old fridge.   The complaint also admitted that the flame evolved from the fridge all of a sudden had been converted in to a heavy  fire and swallowed everything in the shop.  From the above, it is very clear that the cause of the fire is due to short circuit, within the non-maintained very old fridge of the consumer.  Hence the Board is not responsible in any way for the negligence and fault of the complainant.   The immediate spread out of the fire might be due to the inflammable medicines kept in the fridge.  Periodical non renewal and of the installation may accelerate short circuits.  The opp.parties are not liable for the above incident as there is no lapse on the part of the Board’s officials.   The board is not in any way responsible for the financial loss sustained to the complainant.  The allegation that the electrical fault might have  been the reason for the said incident is false and hence denied.  Due to the lack of the opp.parties in keeping the supply circuit to the complainant’s shop room and its installation in proper manner the fire incident occurred and thereby the complainant sustained a material loss of Rs.41.7 lakh is fabricated for the purpose of suit and hence denied.  Hence  the opp.parties prays  for the dismissal of the  complaint.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1.     Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties.

2.     Reliefs and cost.

For the complainant PW.1 was examined and marked Ext. P1 to P4

For the opp.parties  DW.1 was examined.

POINTS:

          Complainant’s case is that he is the proprietor of Sajeev Medicals, Paravur having an electric connection with the opp.party as per consumer number 4365.  In the night of 6.11.2008 fire breakout  in the said shop room and huge  loss sustained and incident occurred due to electrical fault.  Hence claimed compensation.

          According to the opp.party  the Board is not responsible, as the incident occurred solely due to lack of proper maintenance of equipments in the shops.The fire was breakout from an old refrigerator kept inside the shop room.  Hence opp.party  is not responsible for the incident.

          The matter was heard.   There is no dispute that the medical shop belong to the complainant and the fire was occurred in the night of 6.11.2006 .  Here the question to be decided whether the incident in Medical shop occurred due to the negligence on the part of opp.parties.   From the complainant’s side Ext. P1 to P4 were marked.  According to opp.party  in Ext.P1 FIR the complainant stated that the cause of accident was short circuit and also stated that the fire was brokeout from a refrigerator.  On perusal of Ext.P1 FIR it can be seen that the complainant stated that “  Xo I­ {]nUvPv ]g-¡-ap-ff Xmbn-cp-¶p.  AXnsâ Iw{]-k-dn \nt¶m atäm tF-sXm-hn[w tjmÀ«v kÀI-yq«v Bbn Xo ]nSn-¨-Xm-Im-\m-Wpv km²-y-X.”

          Opp.party’s counsel argued that it is the duly of the complainant to maintain the equipment and wiring in the premises in good condition.   As per Sec. 2[a] of KSEB Terms and conditions the opp.party has no responsibility to maintain the wiring and equipments in the premises of the complaint in good condition.   According to opp.party the wiring of the store was done years back  and they are not responsible for flow of over current in the installations.   Opp.parties main contentions that the cause of fire is due to short circuit within the non maintained very old fridge of the consumer

          In revision petition N o.563 of 2002, the Hon’ble National Commission held that due to huge  fluctuation the electric current with the result short circuit was caused in the shop promises of the complainants resulting in high voltages and destroying of everything in the shop, electricity board is liable..  In this case there was no evidence to show that there was huge fluctuation in the electric current was occurred, which resulted the incident.

          According to the complainant Ext.P4 Electrical Inspector’s  report  he has stated that immediately before the fire incidence, the  Bhoothakulam feeder was “tripped off” and it became  live in the next miniute  itself and also in such situation electrical equipments and their related  switching equipments will operate unusually and the electrical fault might have been the reason for the said incident.

          Opp.parties counsel argued that the tripping of Bhoothakkulam feeder is not having any relation to the incident since it is a regular phenomenon in all substantiations.  Further according to  opp.party the Ext. P4 report is not cogent, specific and conclusive.  Hence based Ext.P4 report is not sufficient to claim compensation.  On perusing Ext.P4 report, it can be seen that the Electric Inspector reported that, electrical fault might have been the reason, for the said incident.  It is not a conclusive report,  Hence our opinion is that Ext. P4 report is not sufficient to give compensation

          Moreover the complainant did not produce  the stock statement of the   shop room.  The complainant has to prove the loss sustained to him.  But he did not do so.

          On considering the entire evidence and after perusal of documents the complainant  failed to prove   his case.  From FIR and   from the evidence the cause of the fire is due to short circuit within the non maintained old fridge of the consumer.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of opp.parties.

In the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed.  No cost is ordered.

Dated this the 27^th day of July, 2012.

                                                                      I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. -  D. Sajeev

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Attested copy of FIR

P2. – Mahazar

P3. – Final report

P4.- Report from Electrical Inspectorate

List of witnesses for the opp.parties.
DW.1. – Kala.P

‘