DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.
Complaint No. 40
Instituted on: 02.02.2018
Decided on: 31.10.2018
Jaswinder Singh aged about 45 years son of Jang Singh, resident of Village Sohian, Tehsil and District Sangrur.
..Complainant
Versus
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, The Mall, Patiala through its Secretary/CMD.
2. Senior Executive Engineer, P&M Division, Sohian Road, Behind PSPCL Circle Office, Sohian Road, Sangrur.
3. AEE, Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, P&M Sub Division, Sangrur.
..Opposite parties
For the complainant : Shri Udit Goyal, Advocate.
For opposite parties : Shri Inderjit Ausht, Advocate.
Quorum: Inderjeet Kaur, Presiding Member
Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member
Order by : Inderjeet Kaur/Vinod Kumar Gulati.
1. Shri Jaswinder 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 the complainant is a consumer of the OPs by using one electric motor tubewell connection bearing account number AP-14/1505. The case of the complainant is that the electricity comes from the transformer, which has been installed in the fields of Jatinder Singh adjoining to the land of the complainant. The transformer is connected with the 66 KV Sunam-Mangwal line.
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 KV line and due to sparking, the wheat crops of the complainant and adjoining farmers caught fire within few minutes and three 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 as well as to the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur. Thereafter the SDM/Revenue officials visited to inspect the loss and they submitted their survey report dated 03.05.2016, wherein it has been specifically stated that the crop of three acres of the complainant was burnt. The said loss caused to the crops was due to the negligence of the OPs and as such, OPs are liable to pay the compensation. The SDM Sangrur further forwarded the report to the Deputy Commissioner, Sangrur. The complainant lodged the claim with the OPs regarding the loss caused to his crops, but the Ops put off the matter to one pretext or the other on the ground that the matter was pending before the higher authorities. Further case of the complainant is that as per the report of CAO, Sangrur for the crop year 2015-16, 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 three acres come to Rs.97,920/-. Further it is averred that the complainant suffered loss of straw of 3 acres of land i.e. 25 quintal per acre @ Rs.350/- per quintal, which comes to Rs.26,250/-, meaning thereby the complainant has claimed an amount of Rs.1,24,170/- on account of total 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.1,24,170/- along with interest @ 18% per annum and further claimed to pay for mental agony etc. 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. It is further stated that the Deputy Commissioner Sangrur wrote letter number 454 dated 9.6.2016 to the SE/PSPCL Sangrur regarding the loss of crop by fire of village Kheri, Sohian and Rajpura alongwith documents. The report was submitted by the SDM Sangrur vide letter number 653 dated 12.5.2016 and after receiving the said letter number 454 dated 9.6.2016 by SE/Sangrur, the matter was sent to the officers of P & M Circle Patiala through proper Channel. The Deputy Chief Engineer/P& M Circle, Patiala passed an office order number 49 dated 18.4.2016 and committee was constituted for the enquiry regarding the fire, who submitted its report dated 26.4.2016 vide which the committee held that fire may be caused due to the sparking at the time of breaking of the jumper of tower of 66KV. Further case of the OPs is that the legal section gave the advise vide memo number 8216 dated 2.3.2017 vide which it was stated that the farmer is not entitled for any compensation. It is further stated that if any report regarding loss prepared by the Revenue Officers is not binding upon the OPs because the same was prepared by the Revenue Officers in the absence of the OPs and nobody should condemned unheard, so the present report is against the natural justice and no enquiry was conducted by the Revenue Officer in the presence of the officials of the PSPCL, so the present survey report dated 3.5.2016 has no legal value and this report is not binding upon the OPs. 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-14 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-7 affidavit and copy of documents and closed evidence.
5. We have 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 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 produced on record the copy of jamabandi Ex.C-6, which clearly shows that the complainant is the owner of the land in question. Ex.C-4/C-5 is the copy of passbook showing that the complainant is the consumer of the OPs. Further the copy of report and a perusal of it clearly shows that the wheat crop damaged due to sparking from the breaking of the jumper of the electric line of the OPs passing through the fields of the complainant. This aspect has been accepted by the OPs in their report produced by the complainant on record as Ex.C-11. 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 breaking down of the jumper of 66 KV line of the Ops and wheat crop gutted into fire. The complainant has produced his own sworn affidavit Ex.C-1 to support his contention in the complaint. The learned counsel for the complainant has produced a copy of letter dated 3.5.2017 from Chief Agricultural Officer, Sangrur indicating the average produce of wheat 4802 Kgs per hectare. On the other hand, Ex.OP-6 is the affidavit of the Ops to deny the allegations of the complainant. In the circumstances, we feel that there was fire due to sparking from the breaking down of the jumper of the 66 KV line and due to that the wheat crop of the complainant damaged, 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.
7. 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, Hon’ble 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.
8. 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 in three acres of land was damaged due to fire. The complainant has claimed 4802 Kgs produce per hectare and 1920 KGs per acre @ Rs.1700/- per quintal and 25 quintals of straw per acre @ Rs.350/- per quintal. The OPs did not contest the quantity and the price of the wheat/straw submitted by the complainant.
9. In view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct Ops to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,19,850/- (Rs.1920x3x1625 (J) plus 3x25 x 350 = Rs.93600/- Plus Rs.26250/-) along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 02.02.2018 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 and agony and Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses.
10. This order of ours be complied with within a period of sixty days of its communication. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.
Pronounced.
October 31, 2018.
(Inderjeet Kaur)
Presiding Member
(Vinod Kumar Gulati)
Member
