Haryana

StateCommission

A/534/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

JOGINDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

18 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                                                                                First appeal No.534 of 2016

Date of the Institution: 10.06.2016

Date of Decision: 18.10.2016

 

UHBVNL through its Superintending Engineer, Kabirpur, Sonepat.

                                                                             .….Appellant

Versus

Joginder Singh S/o Jagat singh, R/o village Rohat, District Sonepat.

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mr.B.D.Bhatia, Advocate counsel for the appellant.

                    Mr.Joginder Singh, respondent in person.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.      This appeal has been filed  by UHBVNL against the Order dated 22.04.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (In short “District Forum”) whereby the complaint of the respondent-complainant has been allowed.

2.      Briefly stated,  on 18.08.2014, when he went to his field, he came in contact with live broken wire of over head passing electric line lying in standing crop, which was not visible with naked eye and received multiple injuries one to electric burns.  Due to electric burn the problem developed with regard to heart and hard hearing.  He was admitted in emergency in Jaipur Golden Hospital Delhi and discharged in 27.08.2014. He spent Rs.2,87,973/- on his treatment and requested the opposite party (for short “O.P.”) to pay the abovesaid amount, but, of no use.  Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of O.P.

3.      O.P. filed reply and alleged that no such incident had taken place. The high tension line of the feeder was passing over the fields of many villagers including the field of the complainant. There was no chance of breaking the live conductor of high tension line passing over the field of the complainant.  O.P. further stated that there was no complaint for remand the high tension line. Complainant was not entitled for any relief and compensation. Thus there was no deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

4.      The learned District Forum, however, agreeing with the complainant allowed the complaint by directing the O.P to pay to the complainant various amounts assessed by the learned District Forum by way of compensation for medical treatment, costs of medicines, harassment and litigation expenses etc., as stated above.

5.      We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent in person and have also gone through the record.

6.      A perusal of the record fully established that the occurrence did take place on 18.08.2014 as a result whereof, the complainant suffered multiple injuries and was admitted to the hospital in Delhi from where he was discharged on 27.08.2014. This also stands proved that the complainant had come in contact with the live electricity wire which had broken while passing overhead in the field of the complainant. The complainant had to spend a sum of Rs.2,87973/- on his treatment for which he approached the District Forum. It is quite astonishing that despite all the aforesaid facts proved on record, the appellant – UHBVNL has taken the plea that no such accident had taken place nor was any electricity wire was lying broken in the fields of the complainant. Not only that, the O.P has denied even the simple fact visible to the naked eye that the complainant had suffered multiple injuries to his body, which had got burnt by contact with the live electricity wire. The mere fact that the complainant remained admitted in the hospital for his treatment and could not lodge any DDR/FIR with the local Police, does not stand in the way of allowing the complaint. In these circumstances, we fully agree with the conclusions arrived at by the learned District Forum that the averments made by the complainant stood proved. Accordingly, we have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal by upholding the Order passed by the District Forum. However, for the sake of convenience of the parties and quantification of the total amount of compensation under various heads we consider it appropriate to directed the appellant to pay to the complainant a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest @ 9%p.a. from the date of filing the complaint before the learned District Forum.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

October 18th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.