Haryana

StateCommission

A/705/2019

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHARAM SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

30 Aug 2019

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA, PANCHKULA   

 

                                                 

                                                First Appeal No.705 of 2019

                                                Date of the Institution: 13.08.2019

                                                Date of Decision: 30.08.2019

 

 

1.      Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula, Tehsil and District Panchkula.

 

2.      The Executive Engineer, Operation Division, UHBVNL, Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

 

 

…..Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

 

VERSUS

 

 

Dharam Singh son of Shri Hari Chand, resident of Village Sandhola, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

 

…Complainant-Respondent

 

 

 

 

 

CORAM:    Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S. Mann, President.

                   Ms. Manjula, Member.

 

 

                                                        

Present:-    Ms. Alka Joshi, counsel for the appellants.

                  

 

                                                O R D E R

 

 

 

T.P.S. MANN, J.  

 

          The opposite parties have filed the instant appeal for challenging the order dated 13.06.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurukshetra whereby the complaint filed by Dharam Singh-complainant was allowed and the opposite parties directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,68,000/- to the complainant for the loss of his crop within a period of 45 days from the dated of receipt of copy of the order failing which the complainant was entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment.  The opposite parties were also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for harassment including litigation expenses.

2.      According to the complainant, he had taken 10 acres of agriculture land on lease in Village Sarsa, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra from one Ramphal and sown sugarcane crop on the same.  On 30.03.2017 when the complainant was harvesting the land and almost harvested the crop of sugarcane and only 3½ acres of sugarcane crop left to be harvested, the electricity wires passing over the said land snapped due to short circuit and fell down in the fields of the complainant where the remaining 3½ acres of sugarcane was badly burnt/damaged. The complainant immediately made a call to the fire brigade about the accident.  By the time, the fire brigade reached the spot, the crop was totally burnt.  The fire brigade tried to save the crop but all in vain.  The driver of the fire brigade gave a fire report dated 05.04.2017 in this respect.  The complainant moved application on 31.03.2017 to the concerned police station for lodging the DDR of the incident and the police after investigation recorded DDR No.25 on 06.04.2017.  The complainant moved applications to higher authorities and the Sub Division Agriculture Officer, Pehowa, who after inspection gave the report that the incident happened due to short circuit of electricity wires passing over the fields of the complainant and 70-75% of the crop of sugarcane was badly burnt.  It was alleged that the complainant approached the opposite parties several times and requested to take necessary action and to pay compensation but they did not pay any heed.  Hence, the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 18% per annum and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- for mental torture, harassment and a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed written statement wherein apart from taking preliminary objections stated that as per the complainant, his sugarcane crop was burnt on 30.03.2017 and DDR No.25 was registered on 06.04.2017 i.e. after a delay of about seven days.  The complainant had not given any intimation to them regarding the burning of his sugarcane crop and after seven days, he in collusion with his yes man and in collusion with the police, falsely reported the matter and succeeded to get registered the DDR.  There was no explanation by the complainant in his complaint regarding the delay. They were divested from their vested right to inquire into the matter, therefore, they were not at fault.  Moreover, the sugarcane crop was not burnt due to short circuit as there was no electricity pole in the field of complainant nor any wire of electricity passed through the fields of the complainant.  Rather, the same got burnt due to some other reason, known to the complainant but the complainant intentionally and willfully concealed the said fact.  No detail of the land in which sugarcane crop was standing had been given by the complainant nor any documents annexed.  Accordingly, dismissal of the complaint was sought.

4.      During the course of evidence, the complainant tendered his affidavit (Exhibit CW1/A) and documents (Exhibits C-1 to C-16), affidavit (Exhibit C-17) of Ramphal and copy of jamabandi (Exhibit C-18).  On the other hand, the opposite parties failed to lead any evidence despite availing several opportunities and their evidence was closed by order.

5.      After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence, learned District Forum held that the sugarcane crop was burnt due to short circuit of the electricity wires.  Further, the complainant had claim loss of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of damage to the crop in 3.5 acres but there was no authentic evidence in this regard on the file and the same appeared on higher side.  Accordingly, the loss was assessed at Rs.1,68,000/-.  The complaint was accordingly allowed and the opposite parties directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,68,000/- to the complainant besides Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses.

6.      Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, the State Commission finds that the stand taken by the complainant regarding leasing out of the land by Ramphal to the complainant and burning of sugarcane crop due to short circuit in the electricity wires stand corroborated from the report of the Municipal Committee, Pehowa, which had charged an amount of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant as fire brigade charges.  The complainant had also placed on file copy of DDR dated 06.04.2017 according to which the sugarcane crop was burnt as fire took place on account of short circuit in the electricity wires passing above the field.  The Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Pehowa, Agriculture Development Officer (Sugarcane), Pehowa and Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Kurukshetra, the three member committee, in their report forwarded to the Deputy Director Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Kurukshetra mentioned that they inspected the fields of the complainant on 07.04.2017 and found that 3.5 acres of sugarcane crop was burnt.  It was also mentioned that the Agriculture Development Officer had himself inspected the fields of the farmer on 31.03.2017 and found that 70-75% of sugarcane crop in 3.5 acres of land was burnt.  It was also mentioned that the electricity wires were passing through the pole erected in the affected land.  Photographs were also produced by the complainant, which showed the sugarcane crop having been burnt.  The aforementioned stand of the complainant has not been controverted by the opposite parties as they failed to produce any evidence despite availing several opportunities and their evidence was finally closed by order.

7.      As regards assessment of the loss, the complainant had claimed loss of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of damage to his crop in 3.5 acres of land.  The minimum yield of sugarcane in one acre of land was taken as 16 tonnes and as the loss was 75%, the yield came to 12 tonnes in one acres.  In 3.5 acres of land, the total loss of agriculture crop comes to 42 tonnes whereas the price of sugarcane crop was Rs.4,000/-. The total amount of loss of crop can be calculated at Rs.1,68,000/-, which the complainant is entitled to receive from the opposite parties on account of loss of crop besides compensation for harassment.

8.      In view of the above, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum.  The appeal is without any merit and therefore dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited by the appellants-opposite parties at the time of filing the appeal be disbursed to Dharam Singh-complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

Announced 30.08.2019

(Manjula) Member

(T.P.S. Mann) President

U.K