Punjab

Sangrur

CC/185/2015

Subhash Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSPCL - Opp.Party(s)

Shri S.S.Saggu

04 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

 

 

                                                Complaint No.    185

                                                Instituted on:      07.04.2015

                                                Decided on:       04.09.2015

 

Subhash Kumar son of Narata Ram R/o Bakhtara, Tehsil and Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.

2.     Assistant Executive Engineer, PSPCL Bhawanigarh.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri Parminder Singh, Advocate.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Inderjit Ausht, Advocate.

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Subhash Kumar, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is an agriculturist and cultivating the land measuring 17 bighas and in the land the complainant sown wheat crop by spending huge amount  in the rabi year 2013. It is further averred that a tubewell bearing electricity connection number MA-200AP is also running in the name of Shri Naurata Ram (father of the complainant) as the land in question has been inherited from his father and the complainant as well as his co-sharers are using the tubewell connection in order to irrigate the land.

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that on 16.4.2013, there was spark from the transformer in question which was installed in the land as a result of loose joint of cable and the ripen wheat crop of the complainant as well as of Zora Singh was burnt. The chowkidar Shri Jarnail Singh of village also informed to the Naib Tehsildar Bhawanigarh and Halqa Patwari, who visited the spot  and after spot inspection , he found that the wheat crop of the complainant has burnt due to spark from the transformer installed in the land, of which DDR number 27 dated 16.4.2013 was also recorded in PS Bhawanigarh. The ripen crop was to be harvested. The complainant intimated the matter to the Ops and requested so many times for payment of compensation, but all in vain.  It is further averred that due to the fire, the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.1,50,000/- due to fire. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- along with  interest @ 12% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is not maintainable,  that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint.  On merits, the allegations of the complainant have been denied in toto. It is further denied that the OPs have no knowledge regarding the information given by the complainant to the Naib Tehsildar Bhawanigarh and Patwari. However, it has been stated that the complainant is not entitled to get any claim. It is further stated that the complainant never approached the office of OPs, so the question regarding submission of the written application regarding the alleged accident and loss of crop does not arise at all.  It is further stated that the Senior Executive Engineer, Operation Division wrote a letter number 14950 dated 24.10.2013 to the OP number 2 for submitting the information regarding the burnt crop. The enquiry was conducted by OP number 2, the sketch was prepared and OP number 2 also visited the spot and further submitted report that there was no tripping on 24 UPS feeder Bakhopeer and there was no reason of burning the crop due to electric spark.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Ops has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 are the copies of certified copy of the order, Ex.C-3 copy of report dated 16.4.2013, Ex.C-4 copy of DDR number 37, Ex.C-5 copy of goshwara dated 26.11.2014, Ex.C-6 copy of application dated 13.8.2013, Ex.C-7 copy of electricity passbook, Ex.C-8 copy of receipt dated 9.6.2014, Ex.C-9 photograph, Ex.C-10 copy of jamabandi, Ex.C-11 affidavit of the complainant and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 copy of letter dated 7.6.2013, Ex.Op-2 copy of letter dated 24.10.2013, Ex.OP-3 copy of letter dated 26.4.2013, Ex.OP-4 copy of letter dated 29.5.2013, Ex.OP-5 affidavit of Er. Ravel Singh, AAE and Ex.OP-6 is the copy of complaint dated 30.5.2014 and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             A bare perusal of the written reply reveals that the OPs have denied the allegations of the complainant in toto. But, we are unable to accept such a contention of the OPs, whereas the complainant has plenty of documents on record to substantiate his case that actually a fire broke out on 16.04.2013 in the fields of the complainant and he suffered huge loss of standing wheat crop.  The complainant has also produced on record the copy of pass book of Shri Narata Ram (father of the complainant), which shows that the connection in question is running in the name of his father, as such, we feel that the complainant has stepped into the shoes of Narata Ram and is a consumer and can very well maintain the present complaint. Ex.C-4 is a copy of DDR lodged at Police Station Bhawanigarh vide number 37 dated 16.04.2013, which clearly reveals that a fire broke out in the fields due to sparking from the electricity line of the opposite parties and due to that the wheat crop standing in the fields destroyed with the fire.    The complainant has also produced his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-11 to support his contention in the complaint. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that per acre produce of wheat is about 20-22 quintals. Further Ex.C-6 is the copy of application submitted by the complainant to the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur for payment of the compensation due to the loss of the crop of the complainant, which was already ripen and was ready for cultivation.  Ex.OP-1 is the copy of letter dated 7.6.2013 whereby the Superintending Engineer, Division Sangrur has sent a letter to the Senior Executive Engineer, Sub Division, Sangrur to send the complete case in respect of the complainant regarding the loss suffered by him due to the fire. We have also perused the copy of letter dated 26.4.2013, a copy of which on record is Ex.OP-3, wherein it has been stated that the Ops failed to know the reasons of fire, as there was no tripping from the UPS feeder on 16.4.2013 and as such has contended that there is no reason of fire. It is further stated that the G.O. Switches of the feeder were found loose.  But, a bare perusal of the file clearly reveals that the case of the complainant is that the fire broke out due to sparking from the transformer on 16.4.2013, as such, we feel that the Ops have not denied that there was no sparking from the transformer installed in the fields of the complainant.  In the circumstances, we feel that there was sparking from the transformer and due to that the ripen wheat crop of the complainant damaged due to fire. Moreover, the case of the complainant is supported by the copy of DDR dated 16.4.2013, a copy of which on record is Ex.C-4.

 

7.             Further we have also perused the copy of jamabandi, Ex.C-10 produced by the complainant on record and find that the complainant is the owner of only 6-0 Bighas of land and not 17 bighas as claimed by the complainant in the complaint.  As such, the complainant is only entitled to get the compensation for 6-0 bighas of land.

 

8.             While confronted with similar situation, where complainant’s crops of sugarcane, coconut and chikku were burnt because of sparking from electric wires passing over the fields of the complainant, the electricity was provided for pump set for irrigation and  no steps were taken by the board to place the electric wires properly, in such a situation, National Consumer Commission in The Assistant Executive Engineer and others versus Sri Neelakanta Goiuda Siddangouda Patil 2002(2) CPC 288, upheld the order of the District Forum, as also, the order of State Commission while allowing the complaint and awarding compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. Similarly, in a case where farm house, tubewell and stock of husk of the complainant were damaged in fire due to breaking out by electric connection, the State Consumer Commission, Haryana, in Sub Divisional Officer, H.S.E.B. and others versus Ramesh Kumar 1997(1) CPC 278 allowed the complaint.   

 

 

9.             Now, coming to the quantum of compensation payable to the complainant.  It is proved on record from the  documents that the wheat crop belonging to the complainant standing in the 6 bighas of land was damaged.  The complainant has claimed 20-22 quintals of produce per acre and 30 quintals of straw per acre, but we are of the considered opinion that there must be 18 quintals of produce of wheat and 25 quintals of straw per acre.  We further find that for the year 2013-14, the rate of wheat was about Rs.1300/- per quintal and straw thereof  @ Rs.300/- per quintal. The total approximate produce comes to 18 quintals of wheat and 25 quintals of straw from the  6 bighas land.  If calculated, the amount payable to the complainant comes on account of wheat (18 x 1300 = Rs.23400/-) and on account of straw (25 x 300 = Rs.7500/-) total Rs.30,900/-. 

 

 

10.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.30,900/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 07.04.2015 till realisation.  The OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension and litigation expenses.

 

 

11.    This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 4, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member