DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB-152026 (PUNJAB).

                                                            C. C.  No.           122 of 2014

                                                            Instituted on :      07.10.2014

                                                            Decided on   :      11.02.2015

1.       Gurinderpal Singh son of Baltej Singh

2.       Gurdas Singh son of Sham Singh

3.       Harpal Kaur wife of Baltej Singh

4.       Palwinder Kaur son of Inderjit Singh.

5.       Varinderpal Singh son of Gurdas Singh

          All residents of village Bhitiwala, Tehsil Malout District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

                                             -Complainants.

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited through its Senior Executive Engineer Operation Division Badal, Tehsil Malout District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

   -Opposite Party.

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (68 of 1986) as amended up to date.

Quorum:      Sh. A. K. Mehta, President.

                    Smt. Meenakshi, Member.

Present:        Sh. M.S. Brar Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. G.R. Wadhwa Advocate for OP.

ORDER

(A.K. Mehta, President)

1.                 Gurinderpal Singh etc. complainants have come to this Forum with a complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called C.P.Act) against PSPC Ltd. OP for directing the OP to pay Rs.14,24,735/- i.e. Rs.5,03,970/- to complainant No.1, Rs.3,61,010/- to complainant No.2, Rs.3,07,400/- to complainant No.3, Rs.2,36,985/- to complainant No.4 and Rs.15,370/- to complainant No.5 on account of compensation for the loss suffered by them alogwith interest @18% per annum and also Rs.2 lac with propionate share to the complainant on account of mental tension and harassment and Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses on the allegations that they are resident of village Bhitiwala Tehsil Malout and are agriculturist by profession and have agriculture land in the village; that the OP is supplier of electricity and have installed power station, poles and overhead lines for distribution of electricity and one such line passes over the fields of complainant and as such complainants are consumer of OP; that complainant No.1 also purchased land in the village in the name of his son and in the said land an electric connection bearing No.Y12BT160402W is running in the said land which the complainant is using and is paying bills regularly; that complainants have also tubewell connections bearing account No.Y12AP040260, Y12AP040238, Y12AP040260, Y12AP040238, Y12AP040260, Y12AP040915 in their names and complainants have paid charges to OP and State of Punjab is paying bills on behalf of complainant of the said tubewell connections; that in Hari 2011, complainants have sown wheat crop in their fields but unfortunately on 21.04.2011 at about 11:30 a.m. due to spark in the overhead line, a fire broke out in the wheat crop fields of complainants and wheat crop sown in 45 acres 4 kanals land of the complainant was totally burnt; that the wheat crop had ripe for harvesting and the fire broke out due to poor maintenance of line and negligence of OP and this has resulted in huge loss to the complainants; that complainant filed application to the Deputy Commissioner, Sri Muktsar Sahib for granting compensation on which Revenue Patwari made the spot inspection and filed the report stating therein that wheat crop in 45 acres 4 kanals of land have been completely burnt due to fire; that complainant also filed application to Chief Agriculture Officer who directed ADO Lambi to visit the spot and assess the loss suffered by complainants and said officer gave report on 19.05.2011 and assessed loss of Rs.35740/- per acre but instead of giving the loss actually suffered by complainant, the OP paid Rs.50000/- each to complainant No.1,2 & 3, Rs.40,000/- to complainant No.4 and Rs.2500/- to complainant No.5 which the complainant have received under protest though in view of report of ADO and revenue patwari, complainant No.1 suffered loss of Rs.553970/-, complainant No.2 suffered loss of Rs.411010/-, complainant No.3 suffered loss of Rs.357400/-, complainant No.4 suffered loss of Rs.276985/- and complainant No.5 suffered loss of Rs.17870/- which the OP is liable to pay to the complainant alongwith interest; that inspite of many requests OP had not paid the requisite compensation which caused mental tension and harassment to the complainants. Hence complaint was filed.

2.                 After formal admission of complaint, notice was issued to OP and OP appeared through counsel and filed reply contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable in the eyes of law and complainants are not consumer as per definition of the consumer given in the C.P. Act; that complainant were not paying any charge for consumption of electricity for tubewell connections of the complainants and 11 KV line allegedly passing over the fields of the complainant are not supply line to the alleged connections of the complainants and as such complainant are not consumer so far overhead 11 KV line are concerned; that no cause of action has arisen to the complainants to file the complaint because on 21.04.2011 at about 11:30 a.m. a storm at fast speed started suddenly and fast blowing winds caused joining of wires of overhead 11 KV line and caused spark due to which reason, fire broke out and standing wheat crop in the land of complainants was damaged; that the OP had been maintaining the said overhead line and other overhead lines as per rules and regulations of the PSPCL and spark caused in the overhead line was due to fast blowing winds which is an act of God and there was no negligence on the part of OP but even then OP sanctioned and distributed amount of Rs.192500 as compensation to the complainants for the damaged wheat crop i.e. Rs.50000/- to complainant No.1,2 & 3, Rs.40000/- to complainant No.4 and Rs.2500/- to complainant No.5 as per rules and regulations of the PSPCL and the said amount was paid to the complainants through cheques and complainants accepted the same and as such complaint is not maintainable; that the dispute raised by the complainant is not consumer dispute within the meaning of C.P.Act and there was no deficiency of service on the part of OP and complainant are also barred by their act and conduct to file complaint and complaint is also bad for non-joinder of necessary parties; that complainants have not availed other efficacious remedies available under the Law as complainants have not approached the dispute settlement committee constituted by OP before filing the complaint; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this complaint and complicated question of facts and law are involved in the present complaint which required evidence of both the parties and as such the complaint can not be adequately decided by this Forum with limited jurisdiction. On merit, the ownership of the complainant in the land in question was not denied. The other allegations of the complaint were also contested on the same lines as were asserted by the OP in their preliminary objections and it was asserted that the spark was caused due to an act of God which led to fire in the fields which damaged the wheat crop of the complainants and the OP have also distributed compensation to the complainants as per rules and regulations of the PSPCL and the same has been paid to the complainants through cheques. All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were also denied with prayer to dismiss the complaint with costs.

3.                 Parties were given proper opportunities to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case.

4.                 Complainant tendered into evidence affidavits of complainants Gurinderpal Singh, Gurdas Singh, Harpal Kaur and Palwinder kaur Ex. C-1 to Ex. C-4 respectively and documents Ex.  C-5 to C-22 and closed evidence. Similarly OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Er. Gurdip Singh Ex. OP-1, documents Ex. OP-2 to Ex. OP-4, affidavit of Harish Kumar, Sr. Executive Engineer Ex. OP-5 and copy of self declaration of Dalip Singh Mark-X and closed evidence.

5.                 We have heard Ld. Counsels for the parties and have gone through the documents and evidence produced on the file.

6.                 Ld. Counsel for complainant contended that complainants are owner in possession of the fields in question where they had sown wheat crop which was ripe for harvesting. He contended that service line of 11 KV of OP are passing over the fields of the complainants and due to poor maintenance and negligence on the part of OP, a spark took place in the 11 KV service line due to which reason, the fire broke out in the fields of the complainants which damaged the wheat crop standing in the fields which resulted in financial loss to the complainants. He contended that agriculture department and revenue patwari assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.35740/- per acre as per report of Chief Agriculture Officer Ex. C-12 and ownership of the land of the complainants is proved vide jamabandi Ex. C-5. He contended that as per report of Chief Agriculture Officer, complainant No.1 suffered loss of Rs. Rs.5,03,970/-, complainant No.2 suffered loss of Rs..3,61,010/-, complainant No.3 suffered loss of Rs.3,07,400/-, complainant No.4 suffered loss of Rs.2,36,985/- and complainant No.5 suffered loss of Rs.15,370/- but the OP paid only Rs.50000/- each to complainant No.1,2 & 3, Rs.40000/- to complainant No.4 and Rs.2500/- to complainant No.5 as per letters Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-10 respectively. He contended that report was also made to the police which has been proved on the file as Ex. C-13. He contended that OP has not paid the requisite compensation as assessed by agriculture Department and have not distributed the remaining due compensation to the complainant inspite of repeated requests which compelled the complainants to file the complaint in hand and as such complaint is required to be allowed and complainants are entitled to payment of outstanding compensation as per report of agriculture department proved on the file and are also entitled to compensation for harassment and litigation expenses.

6.                 Ld. Counsel for OP contended that complainant are not consumer of the OP as the complainant are not paying the bills of tubewell connection installed in their fields rather Punjab Government is paying the bills of those tubewell connections. He also contended that 11 KV lines are passing over the fields of the complainant but those lines are not the service line to the fields of the complainant and as such complainant are not consumer of the OP so far those 11 KV electric lines are concerned. He contended that if bills of tubewell connections installed in the fields are paid by Punjab Government then the OP is not providing any services to the complainant as defined in the C.P. Act because electricity to the tubewell is being supplied free of charge. He contended that as electric services were not being provided to the complainant and as such there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP and compensation is not payable to the complainants. He also contended that there is no evidence on file that the lines were not being maintained properly or there was any negligence on the part of OP in maintaining those lines nor any report or evidence has been produced on the file to show that the lines were not being properly maintained and were defective and as such there is no evidence on file in this regard. He also contended that as a goodwill gesture though it was not required, the OP paid compensation to the complainant as per rules and regulations of the OP. He also contended that the complainants have sought compensation as if the crop has been harvested rather the complainant are entitled only to expenses incurred by them in sowing and growing the crop in the fields i.e. actual loss caused to the complainant which has otherwise been paid. He also contended that report of agriculture officer is just based on presumption and is not supported by any document and as such is not reliable. He also contended that complainant filed application to Deputy Commissioner but complainant did not allege any negligence on the part of OP in the said application nor negligence of the OP is attributed in the report of agriculture department and as such OP is not liable to pay any compensation for the damage of the crop though OP have paid the compensation as a goodwill gesture. He contended that complaint is totally false and has been filed in order to illegally take pecuniary benefits and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7.                 After going through the record of the case, evidence and documents proved by the parties on the file, this Forum does not find force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for complainant. The complainant has come to this Forum for payment of compensation for the loss suffered by complainant as wheat crop standing in the fields of the complainants was damaged due to fire incident caused by spark in the overhead 11 KV line. The arguments of OP that complainant is not consumer of the OP as 11 KV lines are not the service lines for complainant or as electric bills of tubewell installed in the fields of complainant are being paid by the Punjab Government is of no consequence in this case as initially the complaint was dismissed vide order dated 06.05.2013 of the then Ld. District Forum on the ground that complainants are not consumer and on appeal, the Hon'ble State Commission vide order dated 10.09.2014 in F.A. No.713/2013 held that complainants are consumer and the District Forum has not decided the complaint on merit and have dismissed the complaint on the sole ground that complainants are not consumer and consequently the complaint was remanded back for fresh decision on merit. Otherwise complainant has to prove that he suffered loss due to deficiency in services hired from the OP but no evidence has been led on the file by the complainant except oral evidence that the electric supply being provided by the OP were deficient in any manner nor any evidence has been brought on file that the electric lines were defective in nature or were not in accordance with rules and regulations and due to that reason, spark took place and the crop was damaged rather the case of the OP is that there was a storm on the day of occurrence i.e. 21.04.2011 and due to that reason, spark took place and the crop of the complainant was damaged and as such this is an act of God and not due to negligence on the part of OP in maintaining the electric lines. There is only simple oral evidence of the complainant in the form of affidavit that electric lines were not properly maintained and  due to spark, crop of the complainant was damaged. It is correct that complainants have alleged that the OP was not properly maintaining the line but except oral evidence, no documentary evidence have been produced on the file to show that the electric line were not being maintained properly or were defective in any form and due to that reason, spark took place which caused fire to the crop of the complainants and in the absence of that evidence, complainants are not entitled to any damages on that account. In case titled Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. M/s KLM Royal Dutch Airlines and another 2000(1) CLT, page 33 a question arose about distinction in deficiency in service and tortuous acts and it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that in the absence of deficiency in service the aggrieved person may have remedy under the common law to file suit for damages but can not insist to grant relief under the Act for the alleged acts of commission and omission attributed to the respondent which otherwise do not amount to deficiency in service. In the case in hand also, the complainant have failed to prove any deficiency in service on part of OP and as such complaint under the Act for grant of compensation is not maintainable. Otherwise, OP have paid damages to the complainants on account of natural calamities as per letter memo No.4/10/2005-2-DM-1/1264 dated 30.03.2007 and the said compensation was assessed by the OP as per above said letter and was paid to the complainant as a welfare gesture. Moreover, the officers of agriculture department have also assessed the value of the crop simply on the statement of complainant and not on the basis of any documentary evidence of investigation on the spot. As such the evidence brought on the file by the complainant is not sufficient to conclude that the spark took place due to defective maintenance of the electric lines by the OP or electric supply being provided by the OP were deficient in nature.

8.                 In the light of above discussion, complainants have failed to prove the case on the file and complaint is consequently dismissed. However in view of peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own cost. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

Pronounced:

Dated: 11-02-2015.

          Smt. Meenakshi                       A. K. Mehta

                              Member                               President