Santosh Vithalrao Zungure vs Executive Engineer, M S E B

THIS revision is directed against the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Circuit Bench at Aurangabad (in short, "the State Commission") dated 6.12.2012 whereby the State Commission allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent/opposite party, set aside the order of the District Forum, Beed in CC/130/2005 and dismissed the complaint.

BRIEFLY stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint alleging that he alongwith his family is permanent resident of a house located at Ukhanda Tal Pathoda, District Beed. The said house was having a wooden frame roof. On 1.3.2004 at around 6.00 pm. there was a short circuit due to sparking in distribution point because of which the electricity cable fell on the complainant''s wooden structured house. Consequently, the entire wooden roof was burnt and belongings of the complainant worth Rs.4,48,000/ - were burnt to ashes. According to the complainant the fire accident took place because of negligence on the part of the respondent electricity board in failing to properly maintain the electricity supply line despite of the fact that four months before the incident an application was made to the respondent board expressing the fear that sparking due to loose connection in power supply line may lead to fire. Claiming the inaction on the part of the respondent board to be deficiency in service the complainant prayed for direction to the respondent opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.7,59,000/ - to the petitioner complainant as compensation.

THE opposite party resisted the complaint denying the allegations of any negligence or deficiency in the written statement. District Forum, Beed on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence produced allowed the complaint and directed the respondent opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.4,05,200/ - to the petitioner as compensation of loss caused due to fire besides Rs.30,000/ - towards harassment and mental agony.

BEING aggrieved of the order of the District Forum the respondent opposite party approached the State Commission in appeal and the State Commission vide impugned order allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the District forum and dismissed the complaint. This has led to filing of the revision petition.

ON perusal of the impugned order we find that the State Commission dismissed the complaint on two counts, firstly that electricity connection was not in the name of the petitioner as such he was not a consumer, secondly, the State Commission concluded that even if the petitioner is treated as a consumer then also he has failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the respondent board. Main reason for coming to this conclusion was that in the complaint it was alleged that sparking in the service line was reported through Gram Panchayat with a request for proper maintenance but no evidence was produced to prove that allegation. Other reason given by the State Commission is that on inspection it was found that the service wire leading electricity to the connection given at the house of the petitioner was found intact and there was no visible sigh of sparking at the distribution point and also that there are other houses in between the house of the petitioner and the distribution point but no other house was affected.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of the State Commission is not sustainable for the reason the State Commission has failed to appreciate that the petitioner is a consumer being beneficiary of the electricity connection being resident of the house. It is further contended that the State Commission has failed to appreciate the evidence and was wrong in concluding that no sparking took place at the distribution point. In support of this contention, learned counsel has relied upon the spot Panchnama purported to have been prepared on 2.3.2004 in presence of Station Incharge, police station Patoda as also the spot Panchnama dated 3.3.2004.

LEARNED counsel for the respondent board on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order.

WE have considered the rival contentions and perused the record. Spot Panchnama dated 2.3.2009 prepared in presence of S.A. Badale, A.S.I., police station Patoda and two other witnesses records that the complainant informed the Panchas that on 1.3.2004 at about 6.00 pm. service electricity wire caught fire due to high tension and short circuit, which resulted in destruction of wooden roof of ten blocks besides the loss of household goods and food articles. Spot Panchnama dated 3.5.2004 was prepared by the Circle Inspector. In this Panchnama also it is recorded that the fire was caused because of sparking in the service wire due to high tension in the distribution point and it specifies the quantum of loss caused due to fire. These Panchnamas however get refuted from the detailed report regarding the cause leading to the accident placed on record which reads as under: "As per spot report and accidental spot inspection, it is being observed that the service wire, meter, Kihcat, wiring from meter to burnt house is found OK. Only the wiring in burnt house is burnt. From this detail report and sport inspection it is concluded that the house burning incident may be happened due to the consumers house wiring short circuit problem only."

ALONGWITH this report the diagram of the spot of accident prepared by the Junior Engineer of the respondent board is annexed. On reading of the above report and perusal of the diagram and remarks recorded therein, it is clear that the service wire leading to the electricity connection to the house of the complainant was not found burnt. However, the internal wiring of block No.2 of the house was found burnt. It is also recorded in the diagram referred to above that service wire was found broken manually. From this, it is obvious that the fire has taken place not because of any sparking or burning the distribution line but due to some fault in wiring within the house for which no fault can be attributed to the electricity board. Thus, in our view, the order of the State Commission holding that the respondent board was not deficient in service cannot be faulted.

IN view of the discussion above, we are of the view that the petitioner has not been able to show any factual or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the State Commission which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.

REVISION petition is, therefore, dismissed.