KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, preferred against the judgement dated 30/11/2022, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur, in CC/18/2019.

The Appellant’s case in brief is that the Respondent/Complainant, being a consumer of the Appellant, had lodged a complaint before the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur, stating that the transformer of the WBSEDCL with overhead wires, above the Respondent/Complainant’s house, had caught fire on 22/03/2016 at about 1:30 PM, resulting in the damage of the Respondent/Complainant’s house, amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs) only. Prior to the incident the Respondent/Complainant had lodged a complaint before the Appellants and after the incident also the Appellant had been informed accordingly, but with no response. The Respondent/Complainant had lodged a complaint before the Asst. Director of Consumer Affairs and Fair Business & Practices on 10/11/2017, but no settlement could be reached in the meeting held on 08/11/2018, as the Appellant refused to provide any relief. Thus, relief was prayed before the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur with prayers made in the complaint.

The Appellant appeared before the Ld. Forum below and filed a written version wherein the case of the Respondent/Complainant was denied. On the other hand, it was mentioned that the incident of fire had occurred on HT line, which was under the jurisdiction of the WBSEDCL, Kumargunj and the Appellant was not connected with the HT line as they were connected with the LT line only. It was therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

After going through the evidence and materials on record, the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur, passed the impugned order directing the Appellant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only, as damage of the Respondent/Complainant’s house within 45 days, from the date of the impugned order.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the Appellant preferred this instant appeal on the ground that the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur had erred in law and facts while passing the impugned order.

                                                                     Decisions with Reasons

Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, at the time of final hearing, had submitted that though the Respondent/Complainant was a consumer under the Appellant, but as the incident of fire had occurred on a HT line, the Appellant was in no way connected with the said incident and the incident was merely an accident and not due to negligence and the redressal for the same, lay in other Forums. Moreover, the HT line was under the jurisdiction of the WBSETCL and it was not even made a party. Under the circumstance, the impugned order passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur appears to be erroneous.

The Respondent/Complainant did not appear to contest the claim and following which the appeal was heard ex-parte.

From the materials on record, it transpires that the transformer near the Respondent/Complainant’s house with wires running overhead the Respondent/Complainant’s had caught fire and resulting in the damage of the house of the Respondent/Complainant. It is the case of the Appellant that the said incident had occurred on a HT line, which was under the jurisdiction of the WBSETCL. In such a scenario, it appears to be simple and cruel act of accident for which the Respondent/Complainant had to suffer. But, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, the case of the deficiency of service as well as establishment of the affected party being a consumer is a sine qua non, but from the facts of the case there is nothing to suggest, that the Appellant was involved which could have resulted in deficiency of service nor is there any evidence to establish that the Respondent/Complainant was a consumer under the WBSETCL, even though it was not made a party. As the Respondent/Complainant failed to establish being a consumer of the WBSETCL, the application of the principle of the non-joinder of party becomes irrelevant. Thus, when the Respondent/Complainant fails to establish the deficiency of service or as a consumer, the impugned judgement passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur appears to be erroneous, as the case was bound to fail. As a result, the instant appeal succeeds.

                                                               It is therefore

                                                               ORDERED

That the instant appeal be and the same is allowed ex-parte, but without cost.

The impugned order is hereby set aside.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties, free of cost.

Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur for necessary information.

Statutory fees be returned from whom received.

Jt. Registrar, Siliguri Circuit Bench of WBSCDRC to do the needful.