Haryana

StateCommission

A/981/2015

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

JAGMAL SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  :      981 of 2015

Date of Institution:      16.11.2015

Date of Decision :       29.04.2016

1.      Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Bawal, Tehsil Bawal, District Rewari, through its Assistant General Manager/S.D.O.

2.      Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Divisional General Manager/XEN, Dharuhera, Tehsil and District Rewari.

3.      Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its General Manager/Superintending Engineer, Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, Haryana.

                                      Appellants/Opposite Parties

Versus

 

Jagmal Singh s/o Sh. Rohtan Singh, Resident of Village Bolni, Tehsil and District Rewari.

                                      Respondent/Complainant

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Present:               Mrs. Alka Joshi, Advocate for appellants.

                             None for respondent.

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

Notice of appeal has been served upon the respondent. An endorsement has been made by the respondent, on the summons itself, that because of advanced age, he is not in a position to attend the hearing and the appeal may be decided on merits.

2.      Jagmal Singh-complainant/respondent, filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari (for short ‘the District Forum’), averring that he is having electric connection bearing account No.J-51-1025 from Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘DHBVNL’)-Opposite Parties/appellants for his tubewell. During May, 2010 on account of natural calamity, there was damage to the electric line. The respondent approached the appellants and the electric line/wires were partially repaired. It was alleged that while repairing the line, the officials of the DHBVNL/appellants connected the aluminum wire i.e. hot wire with the earth wire because of which the electricity supply was effected. The respondent sought damage on account of repair of the motor and loss of crops etc.

3.      The appellants/opposite parties denied the claim of the respondent. It was stated that the capacity of the installed transformer was of 100 KVA and the total load connected through that transformer was only 77.5 BHP including the load of the tubewell of the respondent. Denying the allegations of the respondent, it was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.

4.      After evaluating the pleadings and evidence of the parties, the District Forum vide order dated 27^th August, 2015 allowed complaint and directed the appellants/opposite parties to install the electric Low Tension wire (LT wire) properly on the poles within two months and to pay Rs.25,000/- besides Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2200/-  litigation expenses to the respondent.

5.      Aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the appellants have filed the instant appeal.

6.      It is own case of the respondent/complainant that the damage to the LT line was on account of natural calamity and was not on account of any negligence/inefficiency in maintaining the electric line by the opposite parties. Any loss to the electric line on account of natural calamity cannot be attributed to the appellants. In view of this, for the loss of the respondent’s electric motor, the appellants cannot be blamed. The District Forum fell in error while granting compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent for the same. So, the impugned order qua the direction to the appellants to pay Rs.25,000/- is set aside. However, the other directions issued to the appellants are maintained.

7.      The impugned order is modified in the manner indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of.    

8.      Out of the statutory amount of Rs.16,100/-, an amount of Rs.7200/- (Rs.5000/- as compensation and Rs.2200/- towards litigation expenses) be refunded to the respondent/complainant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any. The remaining amount be refunded to the appellants/opposite parties,  

 

Announced 29.04.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

CL