Punjab

Sangrur

CC/152/2018

Bahadur Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.S.P.Sharma

05 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    152

                                                Instituted on:      02.04.2018

                                                Decided on:       05.09.2018

 

Bahadur Singh son of Devinder Singh, resident of Mehlan, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur now residing at Canada through Special Power of Attorney Gurjinder Singh son of Swaran Singh, resident of Village Mehlan, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

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

2.     SDO/AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Sub Division Mehlan, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

 

For the complainant    :       Shri S.P.Sharma, Advocate.

For opposite parties    :       Shri Inderjit Ausht, Advocate.

 

Quorum:    Sarita Garg, Presiding Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

 

 

Order by : Sarita Garg, Presiding Member.

 

1.             Shri Bahadur Singh, complainant through his special power of attorney Gurjinder Singh (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 having 12.5 acres of land in his name at Village Mehlan and he is residing in Canada for the last 40 years.  Further case of the complainant is that he is  the consumer of the OPs for 20 BHP electric motor connection baring account number AP-16/1628.

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that on 13.4.2016, when the complainant was working in the fields, then suddenly sparking erupted in 66 KVA line and due to sparking, the wheat crops of the complainant and adjoining farmers caught fire within  few minutes and ten acres of crop of the complainant engulfed and gutted into fire, the intimation of which was immediately given to the officials of the opposite parties and also got recorded DDR number 7 dated 14.4.2016 at PP Mehlan.  Thereafter the revenue officials visited to inspect the loss and they submitted their survey report dated 14.4.2016, wherein it has been specifically stated that the crop burnt due to electric short circuit and loss caused due to the negligence of the officials of the OPs.  Further case of the complainant is that as per the report of Agriculture Department, there was an average produce of 4802 KG per hectare and 1920 Kg per acre and the reserve price was Rs.1700/- per quintal, therefore, the complainant suffered the loss to the tune of Rs.32,640/- per acre and the loss for ten acres come to Rs.3,26,400/-.  Further it is averred that the complainant suffered loss of straw of 10 acres of land i.e. 25 quintal per acre @ Rs.350/- per quintal, which comes to Rs.87,500/-, meaning thereby the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.4,13,900/- on account of crop loss.  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.4,13,900/- along with  interest @ 12% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by the OPs, 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 stated that the complainant did not approach the OPs for any loss. The Senior Executive Engineer sought the comments from the OP number 2 regarding the fire accident near Village Mehlan Kothe of village Mehlan near the boundary of village Khadial, who intimated that 9 acres of wheat and 2 acres of Nard of wheat crop was damaged from the sparking of Toori Wali Machine, so there is no negligence of any of the officials of the OPs.  After receiving the report, the Senior Executive Engineer wrote letter dated 20.4.2016 to the Deputy Chief Engineer Sangrur and wrote letter dated 3.6.2016 to the Senior Executive Engineer, Dirba. Addl. SE Dirba wrote a letter number 5947 dated 10.8.2016 to Addl. SE Sangrur, but the matter is still pending.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-12 tendered documents and affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops has produced Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-9 affidavit and copy of documents 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 as the complainant has produced plenty of documents on record to substantiate his case that actually a fire broke out on 13.04.2016 in the fields of the complainant and he suffered huge loss of wheat crop.  The complainant has also produced on record the copy of jamabandi Ex.C-3, which clearly shows that the complainant is the owner of the land in question.  Further Ex.C-5 is the copy of DDR, which clearly reveals that the wheat crop of the complainant damaged due to sparking in 10 acres of land. Ex.C-10 is the copy of passbook showing that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs. Ex.C-12 to Ex.C-35 are the photographs which reveals that the standing crop of the complainant had damaged due to fire.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has drawn our contention towards letters dated 20.4.2016 and 21.07.2016, Ex.OP-2 and Ex.OP-3, which show that the OPs were exchanging correspondence with higher officials to sort out the matter.  Further Ex.OP-6 is the copy of report and a perusal of it clearly shows that the wheat crop damaged due to sparking from the electric line of the OPs passing through the fields of the complainant and Ex.OP-7 is the copy of site plan showing the place where the wheat crop damaged due to fire. Though, it is contended by the learned counsel for the OPs that the wheat crop has not suffered damage due to the negligence of any of the officials of the OPs, but, the fact remains that the fire broke out due to the sparking from the electric wires of the Ops and standing wheat crop damaged to ashes.    The complainant has also produced his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 to support his contention in the complaint. The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that per acre produce of wheat is about 4802 Kgs.  On the other hand, Ex.OP-1 is the affidavit of the Ops to deny the allegations of the complainant, but no other evidence has been produced by the OPs regarding conducting of the enquiry etc. in the above said case.   Further, 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 wires on 13.4.2016, as such, we feel that the Ops have not denied that there was no sparking from the wires passing in the fields of the complainant.  In the circumstances, we feel that there was sparking from the wires and due to that the ripen wheat crop of the complainant damaged due to fire.

 

7.             Further we have also perused the copy of jamabandi, Ex.C-3 produced by the complainant on record and find that the complainant is the owner of the land in question as claimed by the complainant in the complaint, as such we find that the complainant is entitled to get the claim from the OPs on account of loss of wheat crop due to fire.

 

8.             Further it is worth mentioning here that 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, tube well 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. The Hon’ble Punjab State Commission has also taken similar view in Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. versus Balbir Singh, First Appeal No.92 of 2015 decided on 7.10.2016.  The learned counsel for the OPs has also cited Prem Jain and others versus Union of India and others 1997(2) CLT 156 (Punjab State Commission), wherein it has been held by the Commission that the clipping from the newspaper and assertion in the complaint or in affidavit which is hear say cannot be relied upon.  We feel that this citation is not at all helpful to the case of the OPs as the facts in the present case are different than that of the case supra (Prem Jain and others versus Union of India and others) as in the present case it is established on record that the fire broke out in the fields due to sparking from the 66KVA line.

 

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 ten acres of land was damaged.  The complainant has claimed 1920 Kgs of produce per acre and 25 quintals of straw per acre, but we are of the considered opinion that since the complainant has produced nothing on record to support such a contention, we feel that ends of justice would be met if the OPs are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.8000/- per acre as compensation  in view of letter dated 20.4.2016, copy of which on record is Ex.OP-1.

 

 

10.            In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.80,000/- (Rs.8000/- per acre x 10 acres)  along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 02.04.2018 till realisation.  The OPs are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.10,000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation for mental tension agony and Rs.10,000/- on account of  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 5, 2018

                                               

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                            Presiding  Member

 

 

 

                                                          (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                    Member