Haryana

Jind

CC/110/2014

Smt. Mishri - Complainant(s)

Versus

DHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Jasbir Malik

04 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JIND.
                            Complaint No. 110 of 2014
                            Date of institution:11.9.2014
                            Date of decision:- 4.8.2016
Smt. Mishri aged about 30 years wd/o Dharamender s/o Birkha 2. Aman (minor) aged about 10 years s/o late Dharamender 3/ Monika (minor) aged about 8 years d/o Dharamender 4. Ankush (minor) aged about 5 years s/o late Dharamender all the minors through their mother and natural guardian smt. Mishri wd/o Dharamender 5. Smt. Saroj (mother of deeased Dharamender) aged about 70 years w/o Birkha Ram all residents of village Nirjan, Tehsil and District Jind. 

                                       ...Complainants.
Versus
Sub Divisional Officer, OP Sub Division, DHBVN, Jind, District Jind. S/D No.1.
M/s Phour Cablke Network village Nirjan, District Jind through its Prop./Owner Ravinder s/o Sukhbir caste Jat r/o village Nirjan, Tehsil and District. Jind. 
Insurance Company if any not known to be disclosed by respondents No.1 and 2 later on. 
                                 …Opposite parties.
Complaint under section 12 of
                Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Before: Sh. Dina Nath Arora, President.    
            Smt. Bimla Sheokand, Member.
            Sh. Mahinder Kumar Khurana, Member.
            
Present:-    Sh. Jaibir Malik Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. M.S. Redhal Adv. for opposite party No.1. 
            Sh. Anil Puri Adv. for opposite party No.2.
            
Order:-
            Mishri Vs. DHBVN etc.
                 …2…        
In nutshell, the facts of the complaint are that complainant Mishri her sons and daughter (minors) and Smt. Saroj (mother of deceased Dharamender) are consumers of the  opposite parties. The above said complainants and Dharamender (now deceased) are having electricity connection bearing a/c No.J 12NN110328L for domestic purposes at their residential house situated at village Nirjan, Tehsil and District Jind. The opposite party No.2 is giving cable facility in his village and the complainants and said Dharamender were also having a cable connection from opposite party No.2 and depositing the cable supply charges to the opposite parties. It is stated that on 22.7.2014 Dharamender came to his house  at about 9.15 P.M.  and he was connecting his TV with cable wire, at that time there was heavy electric current in the cable supply wire and thus Dharamender suffered heavy electricity shock/current on his chest and right hand and due to which Dharamender became unconscious. Real brother of Dharamender namely Rambhaj immediately shifted him to General Hospital, Jind for treatment  but the Medical Officer declared him dead. Post-mortem of the dead body of Dharamender was conducted in GH, Jind vide PMR No. JK/2014/46 daed 23.7.2014. A criminal case was also registered by the  police of P.S. Sadar, Jind vide FIR No.276 dated 23.7.2014 under Section 304A, IPC. It is evident from the PMR report that cause of death of Dharamender was due to electrocution. The above said accident had taken place due to negligence on the part of the opposite parties. Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is alleged. It is prayed that the complaint be accepted 
            Mishri Vs. DHBVN etc.
                 …3…
and opposite parties be directed  to pay a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 24% p.a. to the complainants.   
2.      Pursuant to notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 have appeared and filed the  separate written reply. Opposite party No.1 has contended in the preliminary objections i.e. the complainant has no  cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint and the complaint is not maintainable in the present forum. On merits, it is contended that  there was a fault in the cable network supply and due to which the alleged incident had taken place due to fault in cable net work supply given by opposite party No.2 and the answering opposite party is not responsible for payment of any compensation to the complainants. It is denied that the incident had taken place due to fault in the supply given by  answering opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost  is prayed for. 
3.    Opposite party No.2 has contended  that neither Dharmender nor complainants have taken any cable connection and they have never deposited any cable charges from the answering opposite party. Neither Dharamender now deceased nor complainants are having  any relationship of consumer with the answering opposite party. The answering opposite party is maintaining his cable wires on the site properly and except this false complaint there is no other complaint of any kind against the answering opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. Dismissal of complaint with cost of Rs.25,000/- is prayed for. 
            Mishri Vs. DHBVN etc.
                 …4…
4.    In evidence, the complainant has  produced  the affidavit of Mishri Ex. C-1, copy of FIR Ex. C-2, copy of post-mortem  report Ex. OP-3 and electricity bill Ex. C-4 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, opposite party No.2 has produced  the affidavit of Sh. Ravinder  Ex. OP-1 and closed the evidence. Opposite party No.1 has  produced the affidavit of Sh. Chander Parkash, SDO Ex. OP-2 and closed the evidence. 
5.    We have heard Ld. counsel of both the parties and also perused the record placed on file. The counsel for complainant argued that the complainant is a consumer of opposite party No.1 having electricity connection and the opposite party No.2 is giving the cable network facility. The complainant is paying the charges/bills to the opposite parties. It is further argued that on 22.7.2014 the husband of complainant was connecting his TV with cable, at that time there was a heavy electric current in the cable supply and due to electrocution the complainant’s husband was electrocuted and died. In this regard an FIR under Section 304A, IPC has been registered against the opposite party No.2. The above said accident has been taken place due to negligence on the part of  the opposite parties and the complainants are entitle for the compensation to the tune of Rs.20,00,000/-. 
6.    On the other hand, counsel for opposite party No.1 argued that there is a no fault in the electricity supply and as per version of the complainant there was a fault in the cable net work supply and due to which the alleged incident has been taken place and prayed for dismissal of complaint qua opposite party No.1. The counsel for 
            Mishri Vs. DHBVN etc.
                 …5…
opposite party No.2 argued that neither deceased Dharmender nor complainants have taken any cable connection from the opposite party No.2. It is further argued that the opposite party No.2 is maintaining wires properly at the site and no  other complaint of any kind against the opposite party No.2 has been received on that date. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2 and prayed for dismissal of complaint. 
7.    After hearing Ld. counsel of the parties and going through  the record it is not disputed that husband of the complainant Sh. Dharamender had been electrocuted and died, which is clear from the post-mortem report Ex. C-3 and FIR Ex. C-2. The forth most question arises before us whether Dharamender the husband of complainant has been died (electrocuted) due to the negligence of the opposite parties No.1 or 2. The complainant has failed to file any record whether he is a consumer of opposite party No.2 and paying the charges for cable net work. Mere to file photo copy of certificate issued by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat alleging there in that complainant’s husband used the cable connection which was provided by Mr. Ravinder i.e. opposite party No.2.  The complainant has not filed copy of order passed by the Judicial Magistrate in FIR No.276/2014 under Section 304A, IPC in which it is ascertain that due to negligence of opposite party No.2 Mr. Dharamender  died due to electrocution. In the above said facts discussed above, we are of the firm view that such  type of cases required elaborate evidence and cannot be decided in summary procedure and as such the present complaint is hereby dismissed with 
            Mishri Vs. DHBVN etc.
                 …6…
no order as to cost. However, complainant is at liberty to file her complaint before the competent court of law having jurisdiction if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC page 583.  Original documents be returned to the complainant after retaining the photo copy of the same. Copy of order be supplied to the parties under the rule.   File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced: 4.8.2016
                                       President,
       Member       Member                 District Consumer Disputes                                          Redressal Forum, Jind

   

        Mishri Vs. DHBVN etc.
                                    
Present:-    Sh. Jaibir Malik Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. M.S. Redhal Adv. for opposite party No.1. 
            Sh. Anil Puri Adv. for opposite party No.2.
            
            
        Arguments heard. To come up on 4.8.2016 for orders.

                                President,
            Member             Member        DCDRF, Jind
                                 3.8.2016

Present:-    Sh. Jaibir Malik Adv. for  complainant. 
        Sh. M.S. Redhal Adv. for opposite party No.1. 
            Sh. Anil Puri Adv. for opposite party No.2.
            
         Order announced. Vide our separate order of even date, the complaint  is dismissed. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
                                President,
            Member             Member        DCDRF, Jind
                                4.8.2016