SRINIVAS RAMA SHETTY Vs. AMALGAMATED ELECTRICITY COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal takes exception to the dismissal of a suit for damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiff in the fire which broke out on 6th March, 1977 at his hotel run under the name of Guruprasad on the Kalyan Road in Bhiwandi, District Thane.

(2.) DEFENDANT No. 1 hereinafter referred to as the Company - was a licensee supplying electricity to consumers in Bhiwandi till 30th September, 1978. The business of supplying electricity to the Bhiwandi area was taken over by the second defendant - hereinafter referred to as the Board - as from 1-10-1978. The take-over or defendant No. 1s business by defendant No. 2 was challenged by the first defendant by means of a writ petition which was numbered as Misc. Petition No. 1193 of 1976. A compromise took place in the said proceeding and certain terms therein freed the Board from liabilities incurred by the Company which liabilities were in respect of non-performance or non-observance of the companys covenants and conditions. The appellant-plaintiff was running a hotel at the afore-mentioned address and was a consumer of electricity vis-a-vis his hotel. The hotel was divided into three parts - the first being used for serving customers, the second for preparation of tea and other beverages and the third for preparation of food. These parts shall hereinafter be referred to as the catering room, tea room and the kitchen room. The catering room had four ceiling fans and three tube-lights. At the tea counter was a tubelight and a block having controlling switches. The kitchen room was having only one tubelight controlled from the catering room. Supply of electricity to the hotel was from a contraption fitted to a pole adjacent to the kitchen room. The pole had ten conductors of which the bottom two were insulated. Supply to the pole was from a composite structure having 22 K. Vs. and 440 Volts situated on the road side. Seven service lines were provided from the pole afore-mentioned. On 6. 3. 1977 plaintiff was at Thane and the hotel was left in charge of his son P. W. 2 Chandrahas. The day was being celebrated as Rangpanchami and therefore there was a public holiday. Chandrahas was at the counter of the hotel attending to receipt of cash from customers served. The waiting customers were being attended to by servants Sitaram, Rohidas and Pandurang. One person, Shankar Shinde was also present. At about 1. 30 p. m. Chandrahas heard a noise from over the roof and his servants gave him to understand that smoke was emanating from the upper side of the roof. Very soon flames were noticed enveloping the roof. Customers and servants also Chandrahas ran out of the hotel. A telephonic message was given to the fire-brigade which came within ten minutes. The electric supply was disconnected and the fire-brigade took about an hour to extinguish the fire. After the fire had been extinguished a phone call was put into the plaintiff by his son Chandrahas. Plaintiff rushed to Bhiwandi and after a visit to the hotel went to the police station where he lodged a report which is at Ex. 66. The police drew up a panchanama which is at Ex. 67. At the request of the police the Assistant Electrical Inspector attached to the Industries, Energy and Labour Department (IELD) of the Government of Maharashtra visited the spot and carried out an investigation. This was on 7-3-1977 and 8-3-1977. The said Assistant Electrical Inspector drew up a report which is at Ex. 84. Plaintiff also engaged P. W. 6 Varghese who works as an Electrical Contractor-cum-Supervisor to carry out an investigation. Vargese did the needful and his report is at Ex. 94. On 26-11-1977 notice was addressed to the Company to compensate the plaintiff for the damage caused to him as a result of the fire, which fire according to the notice was caused by the negligence of the Company - the compensation being placed at Rs. 1,25,000. The notice at Ex. 63 was replied under Ex. 62 by the Company. According to this reply the fire was not attributable to any negligence or misconduct on the part of the Company or its employees. Plaintiff rejoined repeating his assertions vide Ex. 64 on 3rd January, 1978. The claim for compensation not having been met, plaintiff instituted the suit claiming Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages against defendant No. 1. The Board was joined on the simple averment of defendant No. 1 having been taken over by defendant No. 2 and its joinder being necessary for "the final settlement of the subject-matter of the suit. "

(3.) DEFENDANTS in their separate written statements which are at Exs. 14 and 27 respectively denied the charge of negligence on the part of defendant No. 1 being responsible for the fire and the resultant damage to the plaintiffs hotel. The quantum of the damage suffered was disputed. It was contended that the fire was the result of an internal wiring defect for which defect the licensee was not in any way responsible. In so far as defendant No. 2 was concerned, it was nowhere in the picture when the mishap occurred and consequently could not be held liable to compensate the plaintiff.