BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.144 of 2014

DATE OF INSTITUTION: - 23.05.2014

DATE OF ORDER: 24.01.2017

1. Prithi Singh aged about 50 years son of Shrichand, 2. Munni Devi aged about 48 years wife of Prithi Singh, both resident of village Golagarh, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

    ……………Complainant.

VERSUS

1. AGM/SDO DHBVN Jui Khurd, Tehsil & District Bhiwani.

1. Executive Engineer, cum Deputy General Manager, DHBVNL, Bhiwani.

1. S.E. ‘OP’ Circle DHBVN, Bhiwani.

1. M.D. DHBVN Vidyut Nagar, Hisar.

………….. Opposite Parties.

COMPLAINT U/S 12 & 13 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.

BEFORE :-   Shri Rajesh Jindal, President.

          Ms. Anamika Gupta, Member.

Present:- Shri Kuldeep Legha, Advocate for complainant.

     Shri B.S. Sheoran, Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER:-

Rajesh Jindal, President:

                    Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant no. 1 is the consumer of the respondents vide connection No. NA54-3690 and pays all bill regularly.  It is alleged that on dated 28.11.2013 at about 3.00 p.m. Naveen son of the complainants was irrigating his crops while shifting sprinkler set of Aluminium pipe touched the supply line and due to electric shock Naveen became unconscious.  It is alleged that Naveen was taken to G.H. Bhiwani where he was declared dead and PMR was got registered in police post Jui Kalan, P.S. Sadar, Bhiwani.  It is alleged that the electric line was not maintained properly despite various requests.  It is alleged that on dated 21.03.2014 an application was moved before OP no. 1 to compensate the complainant but no action was taken. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such they  had to file the present complaint for seeking compensation.

2.                 On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement alleging therein that the complainants never informed about the said incident to the Ops immediately after the incident, so the Ops could not conduct any inquiry regarding the said incident on the spot.  He submitted that the Ops are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant because the alleged incident of the death of the son of the complainants is not happened due to the negligence of the department.  He submitted that the complaint of the complainant is false and baseless and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.  Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops and as such, complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed with costs.

3.                In order to make out his case, the counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence documents Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-8 and affidavits Mark C1 and Mark CB.

4.                In reply thereto, the counsel for opposite parties has tendered into evidence document Annexure R-1.

5.                 We have gone through the record of the case carefully and have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6

                    Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contents of the complaint.  He submitted that the son of the complainants died on 28.11.2013 due to electric shock when he was irrigating his fields from    sprinkler set of Aluminium pipe, which came into touch of the supply line.  He submitted that the Ops are liable to pay the compensation.

7.                 Learned counsel for the Ops reiterated the contents of the reply.  He submitted that the complainants never informed about the said incident to the Ops immediately after the incident, so the Ops could not conduct any inquiry regarding the said incident on the spot.  He submitted that the Ops are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant because the alleged incident of the death of the son of the complainants is not happened due to the negligence of the department.  He submitted that the complaint of the complainant is false and baseless and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops.

8.                 The counsel for the Ops referred a letter dated 21.03.2014 and submitted that the OP was asked to pay the claim for the death of the son of the complainants.

9.                 In the context of the pleadings and arguments of the parties, we have examined the relevant record.  The counsel for the OPs stressed that if there would have been any intimation regarding the death of the son of the complainants by the electrocuting, immediately then the Ops would have made an inquiry in the matter.  Under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, a complaint can be filed against service provider, if there is any deficiency in service on his part.  In this case no case of deficiency in service is made out against the Ops.  Considering the facts of the case, we direct the complainants to supply necessary documents to the Ops and the Ops are directed to investigate  and decide the claim of the complainants on merits.  With this observation, the complaint of the complainant is disposed of.  Certified copies of the order be sent to both the parties, free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum.

Dated:24.01.2017.                   

                                                                             (Rajesh Jindal)

                                                                                President,   

                                                                      District Consumer Disputes

                                                                      Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.

               (Anamika Gupta)                          

                     Member.