BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 162 of 2020
Date of Institution : 16.07.2020
Date of Decision : 07.11.2024.
Gursewak Singh (Deceased) son of Harchand Singh through his LRs:-
1. Amandeep Kaur (Widow), 2. Randhir Singh (Son), 3. Navdeep Singh (Son), 4. Veerdeep Kaur (Daughter) all residents of Dhani Kheowali, Village Chamal, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Division Panjuana, through S.D.O.
2. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Division Sirsa, through S.D.O.
3. XEN Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd, Sirsa.
4. S.E. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd, Sirsa.
5. Managing Director, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd, Hisar.
..…Opposite parties.
6. Gurdev Kaur wife of Surjan Singh son of Ujjagar Singh, resident of Dhani Kheowali, Village Chamal, Tehsil and Distt. Sirsa.
..… Proforma Opposite party no.6.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ………………PRESIDENT
MRS.SUKHDEEP KAUR………………………MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA…………………MEMBER
Present: Sh. S.S. Gheek, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. P.K.Kochar, Advocate for the opposite parties no.1 to 5.
Sh. A.S. Koura, Advocate for proforma opposite party no.6.
ORDER
Initially the present complaint was filed by Sh. Gursewak Singh and after his death his above said legal representatives have been impleaded on his behalf.
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that he is an agriculturist and had taken 22 kanals of land on lease basis from owner Gurdev Kaur wife of Surjan Singh resident of Dhani Kheowali, Village Chamal, Tehsil and District Sirsa. The complainant runs a Beller machine for making bundles of the “Parali”. The complainant is paying the consumption charges against the electricity connection bearing no. J461-0120 which is in the name of Gurdev Kaur proforma op i.e. owner of said land. It is further averred that complainant had put the said paddy bundles (Parali) in the said land and the weight of said bundles was about 12,000/- quintals. That electric wires are passing upon the said land which very loose and hanging and there always remains sparking and short circuit in these wires. The complainant, land owner and other villagers made so many oral complaints to the ops but the ops did not take any action. It is further averred that on 06.05.2020 due to sparking in the said electric wires, the said bundles of Parali caught fire. The complainant alongwith Iqbal Singh son of Bhajan Singh, Gurdeep Singh son of Jangir Singh, Surjan Singh son of Ujjagar Singh residents of Kheowali, Manjit Singhs on of Gurditta Singh, Vijay Kumar son of Des Raj, Munshi Ram son of Jammu Ram residents of village Chamal, Subhash son of Amar Singh, Manjit Singh son of Prithvi Singh, Sukhdeep Singhs on of Pirthi Pal Singh residents of village Jhoranali and other inhabitants tried to stop the fire but in vain and then fire brigade was informed by Surjeet Brar. The Fire Brigage also tried to stop the fire. The ops were also informed but they did not take any action. It is further averred that due to negligence of the ops, the said bundles of complainant burnt and he suffered a loss of Rs. 19 lacs. The complainant approached the ops and requested to pay the compensation due to their negligence but the ops did not pay any heed in this regard. That complainant also got lodged a rapat rojnamcha No.33 dated 27.06.2019 in Sadar Police Station Sirsa. It is further averred that complainant is visiting the ops and requesting them to pay the compensation to him but the ops are putting the matter off with one pretext or the other and due to act and conduct of ops, the complainant has suffered a great financial loss and harassment. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, ops no.1 to 5 appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, limitation, concealment of true and material facts and jurisdiction etc. It is submitted that this Consumer Forum (now Commission) has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint because the complainant himself written in the complaint that he runs a Beller Machine for making bundles of the Parali i.e. for commercial purpose and that main relief of complainant is for recovery of Rs.19 lacs, hence the complaint lies before the Civil Court only and no proper court fees affixed with the complaint. It is further submitted that complaint is pre mature because before filing the complaint, no application or representation filed by the complainant before the Nigam/ ops.
4. On merits, it is submitted that complainant has not submitted any fard jamabandi in the name of complainant to prove that he is an agriculturist. The complainant ha snot submitted any documents relating to the fact that he has taken 22 kanals land on lease basis. No revenue record has been produced by complainant regarding this lease deed. He has also not submitted any documents i.e. license, income tax department return, sale purchase register, ledger, cash book or any other relevant documents to prove that complainant runs a Beller Machine. It is further submitted that electricity connection No. J561/0120 is not in the name of complainant. No information or permission regarding running of Beller Machine has been given/ taken from the ops. That no document regarding the fact that weight of said bundles was about 12,000 quintals attached with the complaint. No documents regarding ownership of said bundles is also attached with the complaint. It is further submitted that it is wrong to say that electric wires are very loose and hanging and there always remain sparking and short circuit in these wires. No complaint has been filed by any body regarding these wires. The wires are not loose and not hanging. No complaint regarding these wires has been made by complainant or any other persons before the ops. It is further submitted that story of complainant is fabricated by complainant himself only to take compensation from the ops. It is wrong to say that due to sparking in these electric wires, the Parali bundles caught fire. It is further submitted that it is relevant to mention here that in the month of May, no crops of any type is standing in the fields. As per Haryana Fife Service Report, Sirsa dated 19.05.2021, the reason of incident is short circuit and not sparking. The complainant neither approached before the ops not given any application before the ops. It is further submitted that complainant approached before the police regarding information of alleged incident on 27.06.2020 i.e. after 52 days and this act and conduct of complainant itself shows that no incident took place due to electric wires of the ops. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
5. Proforma Op no.6 also appeared and filed written statement and admitted the contents of complaint. It is submitted that answering op is owner in possession of land and complainant had taken the said land on lease basis from her. There was an oral settlement between the complainant and answering op regarding the lease of land. It is further submitted that it is also correct that complainant is using the electricity connection and regularly paying the consumption charges to ops no.1 to 5. The answering op has requested the ops no.1 to 5 so many times but no positive action has been taken by them. While admitting all other remaining contents of complaint, the prayer for acceptance of the present complaint in favour of complainant made.
6. The complainant in evidence has tendered his affidavit Ex. CW1/A, affidavit of Sh. Surjeet Singh son of Sh. Sukhmander Singh as Ex. CW2/A and copies of documents i.e. electricity bill Ex.C1, jamabandi for the year 2017-2018 Ex.C2, DDR Ex.C3, Fire Brigade call report Ex.C4, affidavit of Sh. Gursewak Singh complainant Ex.C5, aadhar card Ex.C6 and photographs Ex.C7, Ex.C8 and cutting of newspaper Ex.C9.
7. On the other hand, Ops no.1 to 5 have tendered affidavit of Sh. Rajesh Kumar, SDO as Ex.R1.
8. Proforma op no.6 has tendered her affidavit as Ex.RW1/A.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file.
10. Learned counsel for the complainant while reiterating the contents of complaint has contended that complainant had taken twenty two kanals of agricultural land from Smt. Gurdev Kaur on lease basis and he used to make bundles of Parali i.e. straw of paddy crop with Beller machine. The complainant had stored said bundles in the said land, the weight of which was about twelve thousand quintals and on 06.05.2020 due to sparking in the loose electric wires passing over the said land, the said bundles of straw of paddy crop were totally burnt and complainant suffered huge loss to the negligence of the ops no.1 to 5 as despite their repeated requests, the ops no.1 to 5 did not take any action about electric wires which were loose and hanging down and prayed for acceptance of the complaint. Learned counsel for complainant has also relied upon decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Jagganath Krishnaji Jamale & anr. Versus Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company & Ors. RP No. 2703 of 2014 decided on 08.09.2017 and also decision of Hon’ble Punjab State Commission, Chandigarh in case titled as Punjab State Electricity Board and others Versus Gurpal Singh and others FA No. 1015 of 2009 decided on 04.03.2014.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops no.1 to 5 while reiterating the contents of their written version has contended that the alleged incident of fire took place on 06.05.2020 whereas matter was reported to the policy after about 52 days as copy of daily diary report produced by complainant is of dated 27.06.2020 and there is nothing on file to prove the fact that why the matter was reported to the police after such a long delay. The complainant has not placed on file any lease deed to prove the fact that he had taken 22 kanals land of Smt. Gurdev Kaur on lease. Moreover, Smt. Gurdev Kaur is owner of only seven kanals of land. He has further contended that there is no evidence on record to prove the fact that alleged incident of burning of said bundles was due to sparking in the electricity wires. He has further contended that complainant is not a consumer of the ops and moreover complainant was making bundles of straw of paddy crop for commercial activities and as such present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
12. Learned counsel for proforma op no.6 has supported the case of the complainant.
13. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties. Admittedly the alleged incident of fire took place on 06.05.2020 whereas the daily diary report registered in Police Station Sadar Sirsa is of dated 27.06.2020 and there is nothing on file to prove the fact that why the matter was not reported to the police well in time and why there was such long delay of about 52 days in lodging the said DDR. More so, there is nothing on file to prove the fact that above said incident of fire in the said bundles was only due to sparking/ short circuit in the electricity wires passing over the above said land and was not due to any other reason. It is a common known fact that straw of paddy crop is very flammable/ combustible thing and can easily catch fire and there is nothing on file to prove the fact that the reason of above said fire was only due to sparking/ short circuit in the wires. The complainant should have obtained NOC/ licence etc. from the concerned department for storing such a combustible article in open place but he has failed to do so. Further there is nothing on file to prove the fact that complainant before the alleged incident ever reported/ informed the ops about loosening of electricity wires. If the complainant was storing the Parali for making bundles at the specific site then the complainant should have informed the ops in this regard and should have made a written complaint to the ops about loosening of electricity wires but there is nothing on file to prove the fact that complainant ever reported this matter to the ops no.1 to 5. Further more, from the photograph Ex.C7, it is evident that bundles of straw of paddy crop were stored just below the electricity wires by the complainant and as such the complainant himself is responsible for the above said incident of fire for storing the bundles under the wires and for not making any complaint to the ops no.1 to 5 regarding loosening of wires because the complainant could store the bundles at some distance from the electricity wires and as such he himself is negligent in this regard. Further more, there is nothing on file to prove the fact that weight of the said bundles was about twelve thousand quintals and there is nothing on file to prove the fact that how the complainant suffered such huge loss of Rs.nineteen lakhs as alleged by complainant. The complainant should have intimated/ reported the matter to the police as well as other authorities well in time immediately after the alleged incident but he has failed to do so. There is also nothing on file to prove the fact that ops no.1 to 5 were intimated about the alleged incident. Moreover, complainant has not placed on file any lease deed executed between complainant and said Gurdev Kaur. Moreover, no reliance can be placed on the DDR Ex.C3 because same has been recorded after about 52 days of alleged occurrence of the incident and it cannot be said that matter was properly investigated and only then said DDR was registered and as such it is not safe to rely upon the said DDR. Further more, complainant has not averred that he was making bundles of the straw of paddy crop with the Beller machine for the purpose of earning his livelihood and in view of averments of complainant himself that the weight of bundles was about twelve thousand quintals, therefore, it cannot be said that complainant was doing the said work only for his livelihood and not for commercial purposes and as such present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. The authorities relied upon by learned counsel for complainant are not applicable in this case. As such, the LRs of complainant are not entitled to any compensation from ops no.1 to 5.
14. In view of our above discussions, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 07.11.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
