Punjab

Sangrur

CC/1568/2015

Darshan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

PSTCL - Opp.Party(s)

Bikramjit Singh Khatra

16 Aug 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                             

                                                Complaint No.  1568

                                                Instituted on:    01.12.2015

                                                Decided on:       16.08.2016

 

Darshan Singh son of Sadhu Singh, resident of Village Lidran, Tehsil and District Sangrur.

                                                                ..Complainant

                                Versus

 

1.     M.D. P.S.T.C.L. The Mall, Patiala.

2.     The Executive Engineer of P&M Division, P.S.T.C.L. Kothi No. D-307, Thermal Colony, Bathinda.

3.     A.O. and S.D.O. T.L. Sub Division, Kothi No.D-310, Thermal Colony, Sangrur.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant  :       Shri B.S.Khatra, Advocate.

For Opposite parties         :       Shri Mohit Verma, Advocate.

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Darshan Singh, 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 he is owner of 7 acres of land at Village Lidran and the complainant cultivated the wheat crop in the said land. It is further averred that there is 220 KW electric line crossing in the field of the complainant and normally sparking remains there, as such the complainant apprised the Ops about this, but all in vain. 

 

2.             Further case of the complainant is that on 23.4.2015 at about 2.00 PM due to sparking the wheat crop of 7 acres of the land of the complainant was burnt, of which DDR number 20 dated 23.4.2015 was registered at Village Badrukhan and also intimated the Tehsildar Sangrur, by this way the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.3,00,000/- of wheat crop due to sparking.  Further case of the complainant is that the Ops did nothing despite serving of legal notice upon the OPs and submission of an application dated 11.5.2015 to the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the Ops be directed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of compensation for loss of wheat crop and further claimed litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that the complaint is false and frivolous one, that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form which should be dismissed, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs.  Moreover, the 220 KV lines are very high potential voltage lines and its height is very much then the question of occurrence of incident due to sparking does not arise at all.  It is further stated that in the particular case, there is no tripping on the transmission lines on the both ends i.e. Dhanaula and Bhalwan on 23.4.2015, which clearly shows that there was no fault occurred on 220 KV transmission line tower, which is very much high.  On merits, it is stated the complaint is false and frivolous one. It is further stated that the complainant himself relies upon the copy of DDR number 20 but the same was written on 23.4.2014 by the concerned official and the specifically time was mentioned in the DDR number 20 is 5 AM, it clearly shows that the DDR in question was written before the alleged occurrence.  It is further stated that since there was no fault on 23.4.2015 in the 220 KV high potential line, then the question of any loss or tripping in the line does nor arise at all. It is further stated that the height of 220 KV transmission line tower is very much high, if in any case or any fault arises regarding occurrence of sparking, the sparking will not affect the crops/material on the ground because falling spark automatically comes to an end upto 2/3 meters from the transmission line. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-2 copy of application, Ex.C-3 copy of jamabandi for the year 2012-2013, Ex.C-4 copy of cutting of newspaper, Ex.C-5 copy of DDR, Ex.C-6 copy of affidavit, Ex.C-7 copy of letter, Ex.C-8 to Ex.C-14 photographs and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.Op-2 copy of log book vehicle number PB-03-AF-8391, Ex.OP-3 copy of log book of vehicle number PB-02K-9022, Ex.OP-4 copy of letter dated 18.7.2016, Ex.OP-5 copy of log sheet, Ex.OP-6 and Ex.OP-7 copies of circuit trapping chart/register and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             In brief, in the present case, the learned counsel for the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of damage of wheat crop due to burning by sparking from the 220 KW electric line on 23.4.2015 at 2.00 PM, which has been passing from the fields of the complainant. Further grievance of the complainant is that though he visited the Ops so many times for making the loss good and payment of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of compensation for loss of wheat crop, but all in vain.  On the other hand, the stand of the OPs is that the present complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious in nature, as on 23.4.1015, there was no tripping on the said line of 220 KV nor any fire took place nor any loss to the crop was there, as such, it is denied that the complainant suffered any loss of crop to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-.  

7.             After carefully perusing the case file as well as after hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the question which arises for determination before us is whether there was any loss of wheat crop of the complainant in seven acres due to sparking from the 220 KV electric lines of the OPs. 

 

8.             The complainant has not produced on record any intimation given by the OPs regarding the alleged sparking of the 220 KV line and burning of crop of seven acres of land.  There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not give any intimation about such an incidence allegedly occurred in the field of the complainant.  Further case of the complainant is that he is the owner of seven acres of land at village Lidran, but the complainant did not produce any cogent reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that he is owner of seven acres of land, more so when it is not proved from the copy of jamabandi Ex.C-3 produced on record that he is the owner of the seven acres of land.    Further the complainant has not produced any affidavit of the witnesses, in whose presence the fire broke out in the fields of the complainant due to sparking of the 220 KV lines.  On the other hand, the stand of the Ops in the written reply as well as in the affidavit of  Er. Pawan Kumar Sharma, Sr. XEN PSTCL District Bathinda, Ex.OP-1 is that the height of 220 KV transmission line tower is very much high and if in any case or if any fault arises regarding occurrence of lead, the sparking will not effect the crops/material on the ground because falling spark automatically comes to an end up to 2/3 meters from the transmission line.  It is a matter of common knowledge that the height of 220 KV transmission line tower is too much high and in any sparking arose therefrom, then it is obvious will end  upto 2/3 meters from the transmission line and will not reach on the ground level at all.   Further it is the admitted case of the Ops that there was no tripping/sparking on 23.4.2015 on the said 220 KV line, as is evident from the copy of daily log sheet of 220 KV grid sub station, Dhanaula, which is on record as Ex.OP-5.  Further the complainant has not produced any report of halqa Patwari or Tehsildar that the standing crop of the complainant had destroyed due to sparking from 220 KV line of OPs on 23.4.2015.  There is noting on record that why he did not produce such a report. 

 

9.             The complainant has also produced on record a copy of application Ex.C-2 submitted to the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur on 11.5.2015 regarding compensation from the PSTCL Sangrur, due to loss of wheat crop on 23.4.2015 due to sparking from the line.  But, there is nothing produced on record that what was the outcome of that application submitted on 11.5.2015 to the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur.   Further there is nothing on record that the complainant ever submitted any reminder to that application to the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur.  Since it is the specific case of the opposite parties that on 23.4.2015, there was no sparking or tripping on that date, the question of loss to any wheat crop does not arise at all.  As such, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to produce any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that he suffered any wheat crop loss on 23.4.2015 due to sparking from the 220 KV electric line of the OPs.  

 

10.           In view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant.  However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.  A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                August 16, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

   (K.C.Sharma)

       Member

 

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member