AFR / NAFR CHHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PANDRI, RAIPUR Date of Institution: 08/05/2025 Date of Final Hearing: 06/10/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 APPEAL No.- SC/22/FA/214/2025 IN THE MATTER OF :

Manish Kumar Shrivastava, S/o. Shri G.L. Shrivastava, R/o. Ward No.13, Bagbahra, Dist. Mahasamund (C.G.) … Complainant/ Appellant Through: In person Vs.

Executive Engineer/ Divisional Engineer, CSPDCL, Mahasamund (C.G.) … Opposite Party/ Respondent Through: Shri J.P. Chandrakar, Advocate CORAM: -

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT HON’BLE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER PRESENT: -

Appellant present in person.

Shri J.P. Chandrakar, Advocate for the respondent.

O RD E R

PER: - JUSTICE GAUTAM CHOURDIYA, PRESIDENT This appeal, under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 (hereinafter called “the Act” for short), is preferred against order dated 20.03.2025 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mahasamund (hereinafter called “District Commission” for short) in Complaint Case No.CC/80/2023 whereby the complaint was partly allowed and the opposite party/ appellant herein was directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) towards mental agony suffered by the complainant/ appellant and cost of litigation Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand). Feeling dissatisfied the complainant has come up before for enhancement of award as per the reliefs sought in the original complaint.

2. Very briefly stated the facts, necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the complainant/ appellant is a consumer of the opposite party/respondent, holding an electricity connection with B.P. No.1008530568. According to the allegations made in the complaint, the complainant/appellant suffered a financial loss of Rs.1,75,000/- due to a fire accident in his shop in the night of 01.12.2021. As alleged in the complaint, improper wiring resulted into sparking between the pole and the meter in multiple instances. Prior to the fire, the complainant/appellant had repeatedly reported such sparking in the service wire, but even after checking the problem, the sparking continued to occur occasionally. 20-25 days prior to the date of incident, the electricity meter installed in the complainant/appellant's shop was taken away by the electricity department, claiming it was for testing. Upon inquiring through application dated 17.12.2022 the meter was informed to be correct vide letter dated 28.02.2022 and denied any deficiency in service as well as payment of any compensation. Alleging the above acts of the opposite party / respondent as deficiency in service complaint was filed seeking compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- towards financial loss, Rs.3,00,000/- compensation for mental agony and advocate fee Rs.25,000/- etc.

3. The opposite party/respondent in their written statement admitted the fact of providing electricity connection to the complainant/appellant for his shop but denied all other adverse allegations levelled against them and averred that on receiving information about the fire incident, the meter installed in the shop of the complainant/appellant was taken for examination in which the input and output terminals of the meter and the meter were found to be correct and safe. In such a situation there was no negligence on the part of the Electricity Department. The complainant/appellant himself had got the electricity connections done negligently, which caused short-circuit in his premises for the which the complainant/ appellant himself is responsible. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.

4. The learned District Commission, in its order, observed that the incident appears to have occurred due to the opposite party/respondent's failure to promptly address the complainant/appellant's complaint, which constitutes deficiency in service on their part. The complainant/appellant has sought compensation from the opposite party/respondent for the fire accident, but in this regard, detailed an