Haryana

StateCommission

A/560/2015

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

MAHENDER SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

27 Jul 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                First Appeal No.           560 of 2015       

                                                Date of Institution:       03.07.2015

                                                Date of Decision:                  27.07.2015

 

1.      The AGM-cum-SDO, Sub Division, Siwani, DHBVNL, Siwani Mandi, District Bhiwani.

2.      The Managing Director, DHBVNL, having its Head Office at Vidhyut Nagar, Hisar.

3.      The Executive Engineer, DHBVNL, Sub Urban Division, District Bhiwani.

…Appellants-Opposite Parties

 

Versus

 

Mahender Singh s/o Sh. Mai Sukh, r/o Village Budhsali, Tehsil Siwani Mandi, District Bhiwani.

…Respondent-Complainant

 

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

                   Mr. B. M. Bedi, Judicial Member.
                   Mr. Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.

 

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

 

                                      O R D E R

 

NAWAB SINGH J. (ORAL)

 

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short ‘DHBVNL’) and others-opposite parties are in appeal against the order dated April 21^st, 2015 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short District Forum), Bhiwani, whereby, complaint filed by Mahender Singh-complainant was allowed directing the DHBVNL to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the complaint till its actual payment and Rs.2200/- litigation expenses. 

2.      Complainant was owner of a buffalo. On July 17^th, 2014, the buffalo got electrocuted to death on account of negligence of DHBVNL. The postmortem examination (Annexure C-2) of the buffalo was conducted by Veterinary Surgeon.  DDR No.17 dated July 17^th, 2014 was recorded in Police Post Jhupa Kalan, District Bhiwani. DHBVNL did not pay any compensation to the complainant, hence, he filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum.

3.      DHBVN in its reply pleaded that there was no deficiency in service on their part because as per report of Sombir, Lineman that he alongwith Mehar Singh, J.E inspected the spot and found that the buffalo died just 2-3 feet away from the pole and stay wire.  At that time no wire was touching the buffalo.  Two stay wires were installed in the transformer and were fitted with egg insulator, out of which one Low Tension stay wire was tied with common pole and as such electrocution cannot pass through the egg insulator. 

4.      The complainant has placed on the file postmortem examination report (Annexure C-2), wherein, it is clearly mentioned the cause of death due to electrocution. In view of this overwhelming evidence on record, the plea raised by learned counsel for the DHBVNL is not tenable and is hereby repelled.  The order passed by the District Forum was perfectly right and requires no interference.

5.      The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

6.       The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal 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.

 

July 27th, 2015	Diwan Singh Chauhan Member	B.M. Bedi Judicial Member	Nawab Singh President
U.K