O R D E R ; ( Per Shri B.R. Chandel, President).
Admittedly, the complainant Shri Suka Ram is the holder of commercial electricity connection vide Electricity Meter No. C1-2. The said electricity connection has been taken by the complainant for running floor mill, saw mill, pinja and planer. The electricity supply was provided to the said industry of the complainant from wooden pole which has been installed near the said industry in the land of one Shri Lekh Ram. The said wooden pole fell down due to which the electricity supply to the industry of the complainant disrupted. The said electricity supply was restored on 30-06-2010.
2. In view of the above stated undisputed facts, the complainant on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite parties be directed to pay compensation of Rupees 33,000/- on account of loss of business in the industry at the rate of Rupees 1000/- per day w.e.f. 25-05-2010 to 30-06-2010 and to pay compensation of Rupees 50,000/- for monetary loss, harassment and mental pain on the grounds that the opposite parties failed to replace/ change the wooden pole in question in time. As a result of which , the pole fell down, due to which the electricity supply to the industry was disrupted which amounts to deficiency in service. Thereafter, despite number of visits and applications made by him the opposite parties failed to install the pole till 30-06-2010, at the site of earlier existing pole and thereby delayed the restoration of electricity supply for the period of one month w.e.f. 28-05-2010 to 30-06-2010, as a result of which the complainant could not run his industry and suffered a loss of Rupees 1000/- per day for 33 days during the said period and suffered harassment and the opposite parties have wrongly recovered the charged of Rupees 114/- of the said period.
3. The opposite parties have disputed the said claim and have set up the defence that HPSEBL has approved a scheme for replacement of rotten wooden poles in its electricity section Harlog. The work was awarded to M/s Prem Electrical and General Store, Bhager. But when the contractor started working near the house of Lekh Ram, he refused and forced the contractor to stop the work, hence the work was stopped. In the mean time on 27-05-2010 the wooden pole in question fell down due to heavy storm. The contractor was again deputed to replace the broken pole with PCC pole, upon which Shri Gangu Ram father of Lekh Ram as Roshan Lal son of Lekh Ram and brother of Lekh Ram agreed for replacement of the wooden pole with PCC pole with the intervention of AEE Kandraur and JE of Electrical Section, Harlog and the family members allowed replacement and changing of the wooden pole. The said officials promised to fix 6 feet channel iron extension on the proposed PCC pole to be erected for clearance of 3 phase LT line over the ‘roof’ of Lekh Ram, but when the pole was erected and six fee iron channel was fixed, the father of Lekh Ram did not permit the execution of the work and demanded the installation of 10 feet channel on the replaced pole in place of six feet which was neither technically feasible nor possible to climb on the 10feet channel extension to do the work and the work was again stopped. Due to the said dispute the energy remained disrupted for about a week and as such there was no delay on the part of HPSEB to erect the pole and restoring 3 phase supply to the industry of the complainant. But it remained disrupted due to the dispute created by Lekh Ram and his family. The supply was restored on 29-06-2010, hence there was no fault of the opposite parties and they have committed no deficiency in service.
4. There is no dispute that the pole in question had been embedded in the land of the ownership of Lekh Ram and his family members. The HPSEB Ltd. has approved the scheme for replacement of the rotten wooden poles and has awarded the said work to M/s Prem Electric and General Store, Bhaged. When the contractor started the replacement work, Lekh Ram and his family members created hurdle and stopped the work. It is not disputed that the pole fell down due to heavy storm on 27-05-2010. The pole in question fell down due to the act of God i.e. due to heavy storm and not due to the fault of the opposite parties. Shri Lekh Ram and his family members did not allow the replacement and installation of the electricity pole in his land. It is not the case of the complainant that he also tried to settle the matter or offer his land for the installation of the electricity pole. It is not disputed that the opposite parties could succeed to replace the pole in question by making every possible efforts and by entering into a compromise with Lekh Ram and his family members and only then they could succeed in installing the pole on 29-06-2010 and restore the supply. The supply to the industry of complainant was being provided from the pole in question. The complainant has not led any evidence to prove that he ever informed the opposite parties that the pole was in rotten condition. The pole was located quite near to his industry. He was getting the supply everyday from the electricity pole in question. He could have reported the opposite parties that the pole was in rotten condition. On the basis of said fact, it could be inferred that the rotten condition of the pole was not in the notice of the opposite parties . But a scheme had been approved in general for replacement of rotten poles and they were going to change the same, but Shri Lekh Ram and family members created trouble and hindrance in the execution of the work, hence the pole could not be replaced and fell down. New pole was erected after sincere efforts made by the opposite parties. Annexure C-3 is the report of AEE (E ), according to which the supply had been restored to the industry on 29-06-2010. The said report was made to the SDO (Civil ), Ghumarwin. After the restoration of the supply the complainant thought it proper to prefer application Annexure C-4 dated 12-07-2010 and claimed the compensation from the opposite parties and now has filed the present complaint. The complainant has failed to prove by leading cogent evidence any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties became the cause of felling down of the pole and disruption of electricity supply to his industry. If some consequential damage has been suffered by the complainant due to the disruption of the electricity supply the complainant is not entitled to get the same because in the opinion of this Forum, the disruption of the electricity supply was not due to the fault of the opposite parties.
5. In view of the evidence discussed and findings recorded above, this Forum is left with no alternative except to conclude that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, hence the complaint is bound to fail.
RELIEF:
In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is dismissed. No orders as to cost. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, complete in all respects, be consigned to the Records.
ANNOUNCED & SIGNED IN THE OPEN FORUM;
Today this the 23rd day of January, 2015.
( B.R. Chandel)
President
(Manorma Chauhan) (Pawan Kumar)
Member Member
