Haryana

Jind

CC/136/2015

Ram Niwas - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Buta Singh

27 Oct 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
FORUM, JIND. 
                                                 Complaint Case No. 136 of 2015
                                                 Date of Institution:     30.9.2015
                                                 Date of Decision   :   27.10.2016

Ram Niwas s/o Sh. Sarup @ Ram Sarup caste Balmiki, VPO Jheel Tehsil Narwana, District Jind. 

                                                                             ….Complainant.
                                       Versus
Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. to be served through Executive Engineer Operation Division, Narwana, District Jind.
Sub Divisional Officer, Sub-Urban Sub Division Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Narwana, Distt. Jind. 

                                                                …..Opposite parties.

                          Complaint under section 12 of the
              Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

CORAM: SH.A.K. SARDANA PRESIDENT.
      SMT. BIMLA SHEOKAND, MEMBER.
              SH. M.K. KHURANA, MEMBER.    

Present:  Sh. Buta Singh  Adv. counsel for complainant.
          Sh. Lokender Kumar Adv.  counsel for OPs.
         
ORDER:

             Brief facts of the  present complaint are that the complainant is having an electric connection vide meter Account No.J32BH11 1225W for domestic purposes and nothing is due on account of electricity consumption bill against him and he deposited last electricity consumption bill of Rs.2027/- on 10.6.2015. The buffalo of complainant was tied with rope in front of his house and a loose live electric wire with many joints was passing with some distance. Due to its looseness & Joints in the electric wire, the wire was broken and fell on the body of his buffalo and buffalo was electrocuted  and died on 24.6.2015 at about 9.30 P.M. Due to fallen of loose and live wire, one bull of Kala @ Sunil s/o Raj Kumar and two pigs of Prem s/o Sh. Kishan Lal neighburs of complainant & residents of the same village also electrocuted. The matter regarding death of  buffalo was informed telephonically immediately at telephone No.100 to the police on 24.6.2015, the police recorded D.D.R. No.33 dated 25.6.2015 and thereafter post-mortem of buffalo was also conducted by Veterinary Surgeon, Govt. Veterinary Hospital Badanpur. The matter was also published on 26.6.2015 in Dainik Bhaskar under the page of “Jind Bhaskar”. The buffalo of the complainant was of murrah breed, curved horn, healthy, aged about 4½ years with female fetus of 8 months in uterus & cost of buffalo was about Rs.1,20,000/-.  It has been further alleged by the complainant that death of  his buffalo  was caused due to deficient & negtligenct act of OPs as they failed to maintain the electric line properly and provide insulators to prevent the electric current in broken wires and thus complainant approached to OPs for compensating him but they did not listen the complainant. Thereafter, complainant served a legal notice dated 13.7.2015 through his counsel Sh. Buta Singh Punia Adv. upon the OPs but all in vain.  As such, the complainant has submitted that the OPs are admittedly deficient in not maintaining the electric line/wires properly and  prayed that the complaint be accepted and OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as cost of buffalo alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.,  and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain & agony  to the complainant. 
2.    Upon notice,   OPs  appeared through counsel and tendered reply to the complaint raising preliminary objections qua non-maintainability of complaint in the present form and complainant has no cause of action & locus-standi to file the present complaint against OPs. On merits, it has been urged that  the complainant was tethering his cattle below the live electricity line much away from his residential house & officials of Nigam requested the complainant not to tether his cattle underneath of overhead electricity line to avoid any mishap but the complainant did not desist and kept continue tethering his cattle there.  Due to storm in the night of 24.6.2015, electric wire broke down  & due to which buffalo of complainant died.  In fact there is no fault on the part of OPs rather the complainant himself is negligent while tethering his buffalo under live electricity line. The complainant was warned several times by concerned official of area not to tether his cattle underneath electricity line to avoid any incident. The electricity line was being maintained properly by the OPs  & the incident of breaking of wire took place due to friction in storm in the night of 24.6.2015 & for that OPs are not at all liable being a natural calamity. As such, there is no deficiency in service on the part of  OPs. In the end, they   prayed for dismissal of complaint with  special compensatory costs. 
3.    To prove his contention,  the complainant has produced his own affidavit as Ex. C-1 alongwith documents as  Ex. C-2 to C- 17 in    his evidence and closed the same whereas counsel for  OPs have produced the affidavit of Sh. Rampal Dahiya, SDO as Ex. OP-1 alongwith documents as Ex. OP-2 to Ex. OP-6 and closed the evidence. 
4.    We have heard the Ld. Counsels of both the parties and perused the record placed on file. The Ld. Counsel for complainant argued that a buffalo of complainant was tethered  in the Gher/Rudi/ land of Harijan co-op society of which complainant is a cosharer and the said land  is situated in front of  the house of complainant. During the night of 24.6.2015 at about 9.30 P.M., an electric wire which was loose and having many joints and was passing through the Gher of complainant, fell down  on the buffalo of complainant  resulting into its death due to electrocution of high voltage. The matter qua the death of buffalo was immediately reported to the police authorities & a DDR No.33 was registered by police on 25.6.2015, Besides it, the post-mortem of the dead buffalo was  also conducted by Veterinary Surgeon which is Ex. C-8. The Ld. Counsel for complainant further argued that in the post-mortem report, it is clearly mentioned that the death of the animal was due to electric shock and whereas the ownership of the Gher/Rudi/ land is concerned, it also belongs to  complainant  as clear from documents Ex.C-15,  a certificate issued  by the Sarpanch of the village & Ex. C-16 & Ex.C-17, a certificate issued by president Haryana Co-operative society. So, there is a deficiency in service on part of the OPs as they did not maintain the line properly and also failed to install the insulators on the wires to prevent the electrocution etc. and thus they are liable to compensate the complainant. 
5.    On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the OPs argued that  the complainant is not a consumer  of OP as H.T. line of 11000 KW was passing away from the house of the complainant whereas the complainant is having only the domestic connection and the place of occurrence of incidence i.e.  Gher/Rudi is also at a large distance from the house of complainant. Ld. Counsel for OPs further argued that the said electric line was being properly maintained and due to heavy storm on  the night of 24.6.2015, the wire broke out and fell on the buffalo. This is a natural calamity and the OPs cannot be held responsible for the said accident and prayed for dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs. 
6.    After hearing the Ld. Counsels of both the parties  and perusing the record placed on file, it is undisputed that the buffalo of complainant died on the night of 24.6.2015 due to electrocution caused from the breakage of electric wire of electricity line maintained & owned by OP Nigam  as revealed from documents Ex. C-4 (application submitted to SHO P.S. Narwana by complainant & his neghbourers), Ex.C-5( DDR No.33 dated 25.6.2015) Ex. C-6 (copy of Rapat Roznamcha No.337 dated 24.6.2015) Ex. C-7 (Newspaper Publication of Dainaik Bhaskar dated 26.6.2015) & Ex. C-8 ( Post-mortem report No.5 dated 25.6.2015) placed on file by the complainant. The moot questions arises for consideration before the Forum are as under:-
(I )“Whether the complainant comes in the definition of Consumer as per C.P. Act?” (II) “Whether the breakage of wire resulting into electrocution of buffalo of complainant caused due to storm or due to loose electric wire having many joints/ poor maintenance of lines by the OP Nigam?” To prove the first question, the complainant has placed on record an electricity bill dated 23.5.2015 as Ex. C-2 & payment receipt thereof as Ex. C-3 and also placed reliance on case laws delivered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal commission, New Delhi titled as The Chairman & Managing Director A.P. Transco. & others Vs. Bhimeswara Swamy & others 2015(1) CLT page 505 wherein it has been held that 
( i ) Consumer  Protection Act, 1986, Section 2(1)(g)-Electrocution- Negligence-Death of house wife due to electrocution- In the way High power transmission wire got suddenly cut and fell on her while returning home-Plea of OP that the lines were regularly checked and maintained by them and the live wire was cut due to unforeseen gale and heavy storm which was beyond the control of OP-Held- The OPs have admitted that the wires were of 25 years’ old-No effort was made by them to change the same with a new one-This itself shows the negligence on the part of the OPs-The duty cast on the OPs is to check the wires, every now and then-They should anticipate what will happen if such and such natural disaster happens-This shows negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the OPs-Revision petition dismissed.
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (1) (d)-Consumer- Electrocution-Negligence-Death of house wife due to electrocution-In the way High power transmission wire got suddenly cut and fell on her while returning home-Whether deceased comes within the definition of Consumer and consumer complaint maintainable?-Held-Yes-Revision Petition dismissed and another case law titled as  Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division & Ors.  Vs. Budhdhan 2009 (1) CLT page 184  wherein it has been held that “ Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 2 (1) (g)- Electrocution-Death of the wife of complainant by electrocution-She was aged 40 years and was earning Rs.4,000/- by doing Labour work-Compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- awarded by District Forum upheld”. Whereas on the other hand, the OP has not produced any document on file wherefrom it may be attributed that complainant is not a consumer of OP Nigam. As such, we have no hesitation in holding that the complainant is a consumer of the OP Nigam.  Further to prove the second question,  the complainant has produced his own affidavit as Ex. C-1 and affidavit of one Suraj Bhan as Ex. C-14, certificate of village  Sarpanch as Ex. C-15, certificate of Members of Harijan co-op Society as Ex. C-17 wherein it has been specifically mentioned that “ the death of buffalo of complainant occurred due to electrocution caused due to breakage of wire but it has nowhere been mentioned in any of the certificate that any storm appeared/happened on the night of 24.6.2015 and electric wire broke due to storm” whereas on the other hand OPs have not produced any document from Metrological Department wherefrom it may be concluded that storm have occurred on the night of 24.6.2015 or any affidavit of an independent witness in this regard except the affidavits/certificates of officials of OP Nigam which are not believable. As such, we hold that the electric wire in question broke due to its loosing, joints and not proper maintenance and fell on the buffalo of complainant resulting into its death. Further the OPs have not produced any record of OP Nigam qua checking & maintenance of the electric line in question as it is the boundend duty of the OPs to check the wires periodically to anticipate what will happen, if such & such natural disaster happens. This shows negligence, inaction, deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 
7.    Keeping in view the  facts discussed above,  we are of the considered view that there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs & we have no option except to allow the  present complaint and  thus,   the present complaint is allowed in the interest of justice and  OPs are directed  to comply with the following directions within thirty days from the communication of this order:-
(i)    to pay the cost of  buffalo i.e. Rs.50,000/- ( as assessed by
Veterinary Surgeon in Post-mortem  report Ex. C-8) to the
complainant  alongwith simple interest @ 10% per annum from the date of  institution of complaint to till date.
(ii)   to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation  to the complainant on 
    account of harassment &mental agony etc.
(iii)  to pay Rs.10,000/- as punitive damages to the complainant for 
    illegally with-holding the claim of complainant. 
(iv)   to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses including Advocate’s 
    fee to the complainant.
             Let the aforesaid order/directions issued above must be complied with by the OPs within the stipulated period failing which all the awarded amounts shall further attract simple interest @12% per annum for the period of default. So, the complaint is decided in above terms. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance. 

Announced:                                                                                                                                PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                        District Consumer Disputes
                                                                                                                                          Redressal Forum, Jind. 

   Member                                                       Member