In the matter of complaint petition filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service by the opposite parties. The factual matrix of the case is that:- The complainant is a Consumer of the electricity services vide New Account No. 906231031157 of Nuapada as provided by the Opposite parties and the complainant has been paying the bill for consumption of electricity to the opposite parties regularly as demanded by the opposite parties in time to time. On 03.04.2017 at about 7 P.M. there was an out-break of fire in the workshop of complainant at Nuapada Market originated due to short circuit causing severe damage on Mobile repairing, service and down loading workshop of the complainant and the same is reported at Nuapada Police Station vide F.I.R. No. 23/2017 dt. 03.04.2017 and the Fire Station Nuapada attended the fire and extinguished it. But, it could not avoid the damage to the properties of complainant inside his said workshop as the fair was solely originated due to short-circuit of electricity and the said accident was caused due to negligence and deficiency in service by the opposite parties due to lack of proper maintenance and supervision of the electricity’s equipment installed in the workshop of complainant. The complainant is earning his livelihood by employed himself in the said workshop in the name and style M/s Sai Krupa Mobile, being financed by SBI (ADB) Nuapada under PMEGP Scheme of KVIB, Odisha, and the total project cost is Rs. 3,16,500/- (Rupees three lakhs sixteen thousand and five hundred) out of which Machinery/Equipment installed cost of Rs. 1,52,600/- (Rupees one lakh fifty two thousand six hundred) and the working capital is Rs. 1,63,900/- (Rupees one lakh sixty three thousand nine hundred). But on the said fire accident there were stocks of different items i.e. one laptop cost of Rs. 22,000/- one Xerox machine cost of Rs. 13,800/-, one computer cost of Rs. 19,000/- and other running product of sale and repairing worth Rs. 1,91,300/- (Copy of stock statement dt. 07.03.2017 was submitted to SBI Nuapada). So also other permanent installed equipment i.e. Glass Fitted Wall Rake cost Rs. 45,000/-, Working Counter table cost Rs. 15,000/-, Mirakel Box cost Rs. 10,000/-, UFS Nokia Box cost Rs. 8,000/-, UTP China cost Rs. 9,000/-, SWT High China cost Rs. 9,000/-, Z3X Box cost of Rs. 12,000/-, Micromax Vorakul cost of Rs. 12,000/-, one Inverter cost of Rs. 25,000/-, one Stabilizer cost of Rs. 8,000/-. The total equipment and goods worth Rs. 3,87,100/- got damaged in the said fire accident. The cause of action for this complain arose on 03.04.2017 when the fire accident in the workshop of the complainant in the market at Nuapada caused due to negligence and deficiency in service by the O.Ps and when the complainant claimed the compensation before the O.P. No.2 on 12.04.2017 who flatly denied the liability of the O.Ps for any compensation to the complainant for which the complainant suffered financial loss and mental agony and as such he claimed compensation as prayed for. The complainant has relied the documents in support of his claims as under :- 1) Attested Xerox True copy of F.I.R. Vide No. 23/2017 dt. 03.04.2017 reported before the Nuapada Police Station as (Annexure-1). 2) Attested Xerox True copy of certificate issued by Assistant Fire Officer, Nuapada, dt. 11.04.2017 as (Annexure-2). 3) Attested Xerox True copy of Stock statement of M/s Sai Krupa Mobile, Proprietor Sourav Kumar Pradhan in the month of March, 2017 duly submitted before the SBI, Nuapada on 07.03.2017 as (Annexure-3). 4) Attested Xerox True copy of Project Report on Repairing Servicing and Mobile Downloading workshop of complainant under PMEGP as (Annexure-4). 5) Attested Xerox True copy of letter sponsoring of loan proposal from District Industrial Centre, Nuapada vide No. 617/15, October, 2014 as (Annexure-5). 6) Attested Xerox True copy of letter of sanction of loan from Regional Business Office, Bhawanipatna to BM, SBI (ADB) Nuapada, dt. 09.03.2015 as (Annexure-6). 7) Attested Xerox True copy of letter of arrangement dt. 25.03.2015 from SBI, Nuapada as (Annexure-7). 8) Attested Xerox True copy of Money Receipt No. B1-5011041 dated 26.03.2017 and Bill for the month of March 2017 dt. 25.04.2017 and New A/c No. 906231031157 issued by the O.Ps as (Annexure-8). 9) Attested Xerox True copy of letter of undertaking signed by the Borrower financed under KVIC-PMEGP dt. 26.03.2015 as (Annexure-9). 10) Attested Xerox True copy of certificate issued by KVIC Office on Prime Minister’s Employment Generation Programme dt21.03.2015 as (Annexure-10). Being noticed, O.P. No. 2,3 & 4 have appeared through their Advocate. O.P. No. 3 has filed a written version through their Advocate. O.P. No. 2 & 4 have filed a memo stating that they have accepted and adopted the written version filed by O.P. No. 3. One Gangadhar Patel, Authorized Officer of WESCO Utility, Headquarter Office at Burla is working under the office of O.P. No. 1 and filed an authorization letter stating that he has authorized the O.P. No. 3 (SDO, WESCO Ltd. Nuapada) to appear, represent and swear affidavit on behalf of WESCO Utility before this Forum and as such the version filed by O.P. No. 3 is treated jointly with O.P. No. 1,2 & 4 in this case. In their written version, the Opposite parties have challenged and denied the complaint of complainant in this case and they have not filed any documents in support of their claim. In the above pleadings, the following issues are framed and considered :- I) Is there any cause of action in this case ? II) Whether any negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ? III) To what relief, the complainant is entitled to ? ISSUE No. I & II. :- Since, the issues are very much linked up with each other those are taken up for jointly discussion and findings. On perusal of case record as well as the documents of complainant, it is found that the complainant is a consumer of O.Ps vide New Account No. 906231031157 and he has been paying the charges for consumption of electricity to the O.Ps as per their demand of bill issued to the complainant and as such the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section -2 of Consumer Protection Act.On 03.04.2017 at about 7 P.M. there was an out-break of fire in the workshop of complainant at Nuapada due to short circuit causing severe damage on Mobile Repairing Services and Downloading workshop of the complainant and on the very day the matter was reported before the Nuapada Police Station vide F.I.R. No. 23/2017 and the fire station Nuapada attended the fire and extinguished the fire but it could not avoid the damage to the properties of complainant inside his said workshop as the fire was solely originated due to short-circuit of electricity as due to negligence and deficiency in service of O.Ps as not proper maintenance of electricity’s equipment installed in the workshop of complainant though it is hazardous in nature and basing on that it cause damaged the properties of the complainant and there is a cause of action. Further it is seen that the complainant is earning his livelihood by employed himself in the said workshop in the name and style of M/s Sai Krupa Mobile being financed by SBI (ADB) Nuapada under PMEGP Scheme of KVIB, Odisha and the total project cost is Rs. 3,16,500/- out of which machinery equipments installed cost is Rs. 1,52,600/- and the working capital is Rs. 1,63,900/-. In another factual aspect is that on the said fire accident in workshop, there different items of stocks were available i.e. one laptop is cost of Rs.22,000/-, one Xerox machine cost is Rs. 13,800/-, one computer cost is Rs. 19,000/- and other running product for sale and repairing worth Rs. 1,91,300/- as per stock statement dated 07.03.2017 submitted to SBI, Nuapada by the complainant. In another point is that the complainant had installed permanent equipments in his workshop i.e. Glass Fitted Wall Rake cost is Rs. 45,000/- , working counter table cost is Rs. 15,000/-, Mirakel Box cost is Rs. 10,000/-, UFS Nokia Box cost is Rs. 8,000/-, UTP China cost is Rs. 9,000/-,SWT High China cost is Rs. 9,000/-, Z3X Box cost is Rs. 12,000/-, Micromax vorakul cost is Rs.12,000/-, one Inverter cost is Rs. 25,000/-, one Stabilizer cost of Rs. 8,000/-. The total equipments and goods worth Rs. 3,87,100/- got damaged in the said fire accident. As such the complainant claimed compensation before O.P. No. 2 on 12.04.2017 who flatly denied the same and still it is unsettled by the O.Ps which is squarely absurd by them. In such an uncongenial situation and without any option, the complainant knocked the door of this Forum. In the present case inquiry was not conducted by the electrical Inspector or any Officer to ascertain cause of accident.The Electricity Official violated their obligation to conduct enquiry to ascertain the cause of accident.So, unless enquiry is conducted the departmetal people can not blame the complainant. Here, the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the department. In another factual aspect that as per Section 33(1) of Indian Electricity Rules 1956 “ The supplier shall provide and maintain on the Consumer’s premises for the consumer’s use a suitable earthed terminal in an accessible position at or near the point of commencement of supply as defined under Rule-58. Here, there is no any documet that the electricity department conducted an enquiry to ascertain the cause of accident.Therefore ,the department can not be absolved from liability. The advocate for opposite parties has filed “ORISSA LOCAL LAWS-Volume-4 i.e The Orisssa State Electricity Board ( General Conditions of Supply) Regulations,1995 as Regulations 13(b) (d)(iv), 39 and The Orissa Electricity ( Levy of fees for Testing and Inspection Generally for the Service of Electrical Inspector)order 1991 Clause-3,5 and 6 are not at all applicable to the facts of present case. The advocate for the complainant has filed a decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in the case of Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (APEPDCL), through its Superintending Engineer Operation... Vrs… Galikondamma and two others in Revision Petition No. 2692 of 2013, decided on 03.09.2015 is applicable and supporting to the facts of present case. So, from the perusal of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, applied to all type of goods, and all type of services, availed by the consumer against consideration paid, or promised. Section 1 (iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is of wide connotation. Supporting to it we quote a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GHAZIABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITIES .. Vrs… BALBIR SINGH, that each and every element of suffering while availing service as a consumer as to be taken into consideration while compensating him in the loss of injury or otherwise suffered by him due to negligence or deficiency in service of the service provider. In further, the Apex Court has held that the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, is an addition and not in derogation of any other law. Perused the documents of the complainant, we found that the claim of complainant is justified and relevant and as such taken in consideration. In the above case, the advocate for complainant as well as the advocate for opposite parties have argued in support of their claim. Here, we assessed that the complainant is a consumer of O.Ps and it is the duty of O.Ps to provide proper service to the complainant. But O.Ps have failed to do the same in this case. Hence, it is apparent from the above issues that there is a deficiency of service by the O.Ps as not properly provide proper service to the complainant for which the complainant is suffering financial loss and mental agony due to negligence and deficiency of service by the O.Ps. So, we are of considered opinion that there is a deficiency in service by the O.Ps. Thus, O.Ps are liable for deficiency in service. ISSUE No. III :- It is clear crystal that the complainant has proved his case and he is entitled to get relief in this case. Hence, order. O R D E R. In the aforesaid matrix of facts and circumstances, the complaint is allowed and we direct U/s 14 (i) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as below :- 1) We direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 3,87,100/- (Rupees three lakhs eighty seven thousand one hundred) to the complainant towards loss and damage of properties of complainant within 45 (forty five) days from the date of order,failing which the opposite parties shall be liable to pay the interest @ 9% p.a. from 03.04.2017 till payment. 2) We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony and harassment and further pay as Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) towards litigation cost within 45 (forty five) days from the date of order. 3) Failing which the above order, the complainant is at liberty to take steps as per process of law. Judgement pronounced in the Open Court of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nuapada, this the 16th day of April 2019.