Ld Advocate for the complainant is present. Judgement is delivered in open Commission.

BY - SRI.SAURAV CHANDRA, MEMBER

1. Brief facts of the Complainant’s case are that the Opposite Party No.1 is an Electricity Service Provider from whom the Complainant as a Consumer has taken the electricity connection for his dwelling house. The Opposite Party No.2 is an authorized person of the contractor of Opposite Party No.1.

2. In order to provide steady and healthy power supply to the consumers under Deen Dayal Upadhyay Gram Jyoti Yogona (DDUGJY), the work was going on in full swing throughout the Kolaghat CCC area by the West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (WBSEDCL). Under this scheme the conversion of ACSR bare conductor of LT overhead line into AB Cable was done under the workmanship Larsen & Toubro Ltd. in the respective villages as per LOA No.DDUGJY/LOA/PKG-10 /MDN(E)/VILL & FDR/L&T/SUPPLY/625 & 626, dated: 15.03.2017.

3. For execution of the said work, technicians, workers and staff of the Ops was reached the dwelling house of the Complainant on 11.03.2019 at about 3:30 PM and connected the cable line without proper verification and checking. After that the technicians, workers and staff of Ops started their work in the locality from where they restored the electricity power connection in the meter of the Complainant which resulting to sparking, flashing, firing as well as conflagration in the dwelling house of the Complainant. The intensity of the said firing was so that, the entire Electrical Wearing, Electronic Goods, Fan, Lights, Furniture & Fixture, Ceiling, Tiles Floor, Plasters of Wall, Books, valuable Papers, Bed, Shirt and Household Articles were fully destroyed, the calculated value of which is more than Rs.1,50,000.00 as per the claim of Complainant.

4. After the said incident, Op No.2 met with the Complainant on 12.03.2019 where a Meeting/‘Salish Sabha’ was held in present of the local Panchayat Committee Members and others in which the Op No.2 agreed to compensate the Complainant with a sum of Rs.61,340.00 under full settlement within 23.03.2019 but, ultimately not paid.

5. Thereafter, the Complainant severally tried to meet the Ops regarding the said compensation but, no fruitful result except the verbal assurances by the Ops.
6. On 28.03.2019 and 27.03.2019, the Complainant submitted two letters before the Op No.1 and the Project Manager R.E, WBSEDCL but, all in vain.

7. Lastly on 10.06.2019, the Complainant filed a complaint before the Assistant Director of Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Purba Medinipur vide No.63/PBM/19, dated: 29.07.2019 by fixing a date on 21.08.2019 for peaceful mediation but, due to un-willingness, non-responses and non-appearances of the Op members, the said complaint has been dropped with a suggestion to file a case at this Commission.

8. The cause of action of this case arose on and from 23.03.2019 and 21.08.2019 respectively.

The Complainant, therefore, prays for:-

1. To pay a Compensation of Rs.1,50,000.00 for damages by conflagration to the Complainant by the Ops.

2. To pay a Compensation of Rs.25,000.00 for harassment, mental pain and agony etc.

3. To pay a Litigation Cost of Rs.5,000.00 to the Complainant by the Ops for conducting the case.

4. Any other order as the Commission may deem fit and proper.

9. Notices were duly served upon the Ops but, Op No. 2 did not contest the case as such the proceeding of the case has run ex-parte against it.

10. The Op No.1 being represented by its’ Learned Advocate has contested the case with filing Written Version against the Complaint. While resisting the claim of the Complainant, the Op No.1 in its’ Written Version stated inter alia that this complaint is not maintainable as per the provision of the Consumer Protection Act and has no cause of action. Moreover, all the statements of the Complainant are false, imaginary, frivolous, vexatious and baseless with completely malafide and misconceived. The Complainant suppressed the material facts and the statement made in Paragraph No.1 to 23 of the Complaint are false, imaginary, frivolous, vexatious and baseless.

11. The Op No.1 further submits that no official information from technical wings or from any civil local administration received regarding the so-called incident as stated in the complaint. The Op has not received any fire hazard official report from the petitioner locality. The Complainant intentionally in order to get undue benefit filed this case with false imaginary and baseless statements. So-called claim of the Complainant not maintainable in this Commission.

12. Under the above circumstances, the Op No.1 has prayed for set aside the present case with costs.

13. Points for determination are:

1. Is the case maintainable in its present form and in law? 
2. Is the Complainant entitled to the relief(s) as sought for?

14. Decision with reasons

1. Both the points I and II, being inter related to each other, are taken up together for discussion for sake of brevity and convenience.

2. We have carefully perused the Petition of the Complainant along with all connected papers and other documents.

15. Having regards had to the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of evidence, it is evident that the Complainant is a consumer having grievances against the Ops, as such the case is maintainable in its present form and in law.

16. In the instant case, the Complainant submitted Examination-in-Chief on Affidavit as PW1 and Questionnaire by the Complainant; Reply against the Questionnaire of Op No.1 alongwith documents viz. the copy of Land Record and Panchayat Tax payment related documents; duly acknowledged Complaint Letters before the Assistant Engineer of WBSEDCL i.e. Op No.1; Project Manager RE of WBSEDCL; Claim Settlement paper with details of Assessed Damage duly signed by the Op No.2 in presence of Complainant, Gram Panchayat Members and Others; Complaint before the Assistant Director - CA&FBP in respect of deficiency in service and prayer for redressal with Mediation Report; Nine Photographs of the Damaged Property.

17. On the other hand, Op No.1 submitted Examination-in-Chief on Affidavit as OPW1; Questionnaire by the Op No.1 and Reply against the Questionnaire of Complainant alongwith documents viz. a Letter of Award containing 17 Pages under Memo No. DDUGJY/LOA/PKG-10/MDN(E)/VILL & FDR/L&T/SUPPLY/ 625, dated: 15.03.2017 issued to its’ contractor M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. for Ex-Works Supply of All Equipment and Materials related to the job of Rural Electricity Infrastructure Development for Connection Un-Connected House Holds, Metering Works and Agricultural Feeder Segregation Works of Purba Midnapur District of West Bengal under Deendayal Upadhyay Gram Jyoti Yojona.

18. We have gone through the above Evidence alongwith documents of both the parties. On careful analysis and evaluation of the Evidence and documents it is observed by this Commission as follows :-

1. In the photographs, it is transpired that being aggrieved by the act of the respondent authorities, the Complainant incurred severe loss and damages for which the Op No.2 primarily agreed to compensate the Complainant before the Gram Panchayat ‘Salishi Sabha’ after evaluating the loss in details with a mutual settlement for payment of Rs.61,340.00 by 23.03.2019.

2. But, the Op No.2 failed to compensate within the stipulated time and therefore, the Complainant approached the Op No.1 and its’ another office i.e. Project Manager R.E, WBSEDCL, Purba Medinipur vide two letters duly acknowledged with Office Seal by the Op Members on 28.03.2019 and 27.03.2019 respectively for necessary inspection and further assessment of loss towards payment of compensation at the earliest. The Complainant is a bonafide Customer/Consumer of the Op No.1. It is the duty on the part of the Op No.1 to conduct an enquiry by its’ own machinery to ascertain the truthfulness of any Complaint lodged by the said Customer/Consumer. In-spite of that, the respondent authorities neither visited the spot for detail investigation nor paid any heed to his complaint. Moreover, the Ops after duly acknowledging the Notice from the CA&FBP, did not attended the Mediation.

3. It is also pertinent to mention that, the Op No.1 denied all facts of the complaint to be false from Serial No.4 to 28 of the Examination-in-Chief on Affidavit as OPW1, whereas this Commission found most of such denials are invalid and evasive. It appears from the materials on record that the Op No.1 knowingly affirmed untruth Affidavit (without Notarized) particularly against the Serial No(s).13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21 respectively.

4. Being the Principal Service Provider, the Op No.1 can’t deny the act or omission or liability or negligence or deficiency in service of its’ authorized agent or contractor i.e. M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. whereas in the LOA Clause No.1.9, the Op No.1 has an option for obtaining the Performance Security in form of Bank Guarantee from its’ contractor; Clause No.9.0 for Defect Liability and Clause No.26 speaks for the Contractual Agreement. Rather, from the record it appears that the Op No.1 intentionally deprived its’ consumer by not compensating but, also simply ignoring the customer with showing the reluctance to solve the issue for which the Complainant was bound to suffer irreparable loss, mental pain and agony.

5. Under the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, this Commission found that there are the elements of Gross Negligence and Deficiency in Service by the Op No.1 being a Principal Service Provider. The damages caused by the Op No.2 i.e. the worker of M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. who was engaged by the Principal Service Provider i.e. Op No.1 should be treated as the damaged caused by the Principal Service Provider itself. Here Op No.2 is not personally liable for the act or omission done by him to the Complainant. He is only answerable to his employer.

6. Now, coming to the matter of reliefs. The Op No.1 can’t get absolved from the mischief of Gross Negligence and Deficiency in Service. Now, coming to the quantum of damages caused. It appears from the document in respect of account of damages (Annexure – 5) submitted by the Complainant that Op No.2 assessed the damages at Rs.61,340.00 and he agreed to pay Rs.60,340.00 by 23.03.2019. We do not find any contradicting material to disbelieve it. So, we think it would be just and proper if we direct the Op No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.60,340.00 for Damages and Rs.10,000.00 towards Compensation and Rs.5,000.00 as Litigation Costs.

19. Both the points are disposed of accordingly.

20. Thus, the complaint case succeeds.

Hence, it is

        O R D E R E D

That the CC-586 of 2019 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Op No.1 and dismissed exparte against the Op No.2.

The Op No.1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.60,340.00 towards Damages and Rs.10,000.00 towards Compensation and Rs.5,000.00 as Litigation Costs within 45 Days from the date of this order, in default the Op No.1 will be liable to pay Simple Interest @8% per annum from the date of this order till realization.

The Complainant would be at liberty to put the order into execution u/s 71 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and to initiate a proceeding u/s 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Let a copy of this judgment be provided to the Complainant free of cost. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.

File be consigned to record section along with a copy of this   judgment.