A.K.Mehta President

1        The complainant Mrs. Parkash Kumari filed the present complaint under Section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act (herein after called as 'the Act') against Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Earlier Punjab State Electricity Board through its Chairman, the Mall, Patiala (Opposite Party) on the allegations of deficiency  in service, unfair trade practice and malpractice with further prayer to direct the opposite party to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- for damage to the property and total loss of T.V. L.C.D, washing machine and other electric and electronic gadgets, electric wiring of the house and Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation  but restricts the total relief to the extent of Rs. 19,99,999/-.

2        The case of the complainant in brief is that complainant has an electric connection No. A22HG710040L in her name for domestic use; that High Tension Electric wires were passing over the house of the complainant and opposite party was requested many times to shift the same as the wires were grave danger to the life and property of the complainant and her family but the opposite party did nothing to remove the wires; that  unfortunately on 22.11.2014 at about 14.15 Hours, a heavy blast took place from the High Tension Electric wires passing over the house of the complainant which caused heavy damage to the property and electric and electronic gadgets in the house; that complainant immediately intimated to the opposite party-complaint office regarding the incident and D.D.R. was lodged and was communicated to the opposite party; that the blast occurred from the High Tension Electric wires of the opposite party caused the loss to the building and other electric gadgets and also to electric wiring of   the house, but the complainant restricted the said loss to Rs. 5,00,000/- only for the purpose of present complaint; that act of the opposite party in not removing and not properly up-keeping the High Tension Electric wires  passing over the house of the complainant and putting the life and property of the complainant in grave risk amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and malpractice and it caused lot of mental trauma, agony and harassment for which the opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 15,00,000/- to the complainant; that complainant requested the opposite party to pay compensation but with no effect which compelled the complainant to file the present complaint.

3        After formal admission of the complaint, notice was issued to Opposite Party  and Opposite Party appeared through counsel and filed written version contesting the complaint on the preliminary objections that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form as this Forum has no jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the matter in dispute and only
Civil Court has the jurisdiction to try this case as it is matter of evidence that the complainant has violated the instructions contained in the electricity rules while constructing his building under High Tension Electric wires passing over the house and even no objection certificate was obtained by the complainant from Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and from concerned authority of M.C.A before raising the construction of the building  and as such, the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed and that no cause of action has arisen to the complainant against the opposite party. On merits, it was admitted that the electric connection in dispute is running in the name of complainant. It was also admitted that a High Tension Electric wires of 132 KV/132000 volts is passing above the house of the complainant but it was denied if complainant requested the opposite party to remove the wires as alleged by her because infact these wires are in existence since 1970 much before the construction of the building of the complainant and even the complainant did not get N.O.C. from the opposite party-Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and from the M.C.A. before raising construction of the building as required by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Municipal Corporation Amritsar and if any construction is made by the complainant under High Tension Electric wires, then she has violated the electricity rules and as such, if any incident has occurred due to these  wires to the building of the complainant then in that case, complainant herself is responsible for the same and not the opposite party; that the distance of the wires and roof of the house of the complainant should be 6.1 Meters as per Section 80.2 (C) of the electricity rules but in the present case, distance of the roof of the house of the complainant and wires is only 2.27 meters which is against the instructions of the electricity  rules and as such these facts prove that complainant has violated the electricity rules. It was admitted that on 22.11.2014 an incident took place due to touching of China Dor of a kite being flied by a child on the roof of one Rajneesh Kumar of  adjoining house to the house of the complainant and due  to touching of that China Dor, a heavy blast occurred and child was injured but Rajneesh Bhardwaj owner of that building has given an affidavit to the opposite party that there was no fault on the part of any employee of the PSPCL and Punjab Govt. has also given sufficient compensation to the parents of the child and as such, opposite party is not liable to pay any more compensation to the complainant and complainant is misleading and misstating the actual truth to the Forum and as such complaint is liable to be dismissed.  It was denied if any damage was caused to the property of the complainant due to said blast because the complainant has not given any intimation to the opposite party regarding any loss to his building before filing the present complaint and now the complainant is misleading and misstating the actual truth only to get the compensation from the opposite party. All other allegations mentioned in the complaint were denied being wrong and incorrect and prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4          Sufficient opportunities were granted to the parties to lead evidence in order to prove their respective case.  Ld. counsel for the complainant tendered in to evidence the affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1 alongwith documents Ex. C-2 to C-12 and closed the evidence and thereafter Ld. Counsel for the Opposite Party tendered in to evidence, affidavit of Jaspal Singh SDO OP1 alongwith documents Ex. OP2, Ex. OP3 and closed the evidence.

5        We have heard the Ld. Counsel for parties and also gone through the evidence and documents produced by the parties.

 6       Ld. counsel for the complainant contended that High Tension Electric Wires are passing over complainant’s house and  nephew of the owner of the adjoining house  was present on the roof of the adjoining house  and a kite was passing over the  said house and child present on the roof of adjoining house caught the string (Dor) of the Kite and kite fell on the High Tension Electric Wires  and due to this reason, a blast took place in the High Tension Electric Wires  which caused extensive damage to the house of complainant and also to the articles like T.V. Air Conditioner, washing machine and other electrical and electronic goods and also caused damage to the wiring and piping of the house and  the boy present on the roof of the adjoining house  was also electrocuted and suffered many injuries and burns and was taken to hospital. He contended that complainant gave intimation to the Chief Engineer Ex.C3 and  police rapat Ex.C4 was also got registered by Rajneesh Bhardwaj owner of the adjoining house. He contended that an electric connection is running in the house of the complainant and electricity bill of the house of the complainant is proved on the record as Ex.C2. He contended that the house of the complainant is also subject to house tax and house tax receipts are proved on the record of file Ex.C9 and Ex.C10 and it shows that the house of the complainant was constructed after taking clearance from Electricity Department as well as from Municipal Corporation Amritsar. He contended that due to the incident of blast, extensive damage was caused to the house of the complainant and the damage was photographed and complainant proved the photographs as Ex.C11 which contained 14 photographs. He contended that damage to the extent of Rs. 6,91,600/- was caused to the house of the complainant as well as to electrical and electronic articles fixed in the house. He contended that opposite party has admitted the incident, but it was contended by the opposite party that house has not been constructed in accordance with rules which is incorrect because electric connection was issued to the complainant by the opposite party-PSPCL which is always issued if all the rules of the Electricity Department has been complied by the complainant and house was also legally constructed as the same was being assessed for house tax by Municipal Corporation Amritsar. He contended that incident occurred due to poor maintenance of transmission lines and it shows deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and as such, opposite party is liable to pay the damage, but opposite party refused to pay the damage and the act and conduct of the opposite party caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such the complainant is also entitled to compensation on account of harassment etc. and also litigation expenses as the complainant was compelled to file the complaint in hand. He supported his arguments with case titled The Chairman & Managing Director A.P. Transco. & Others-Petitioner Vs Bhimeswara Swamy & Others-Respondents 2015(1) Consumer Law today page 505, case titled Ankush & Others-Petitioners Vs Superintending Engineer & ORS-Respondents 2016(1) Consumer Protection Judgment page 383, and case titled Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division & Ors-Petitioners Vs Budhdhan-Respondent 2009(1) Consumer Protection Cases  Page 30.

7        Ld. counsel for the opposite party contended that the complaint is not maintainable in the Consumer Forum as Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the matter as only Civil Court has jurisdiction to try this case because evidence is to be led in this case which requires cross examination etc. which is not permissible in Consumer Fora as the complaint is to be decided by summery procedure. He supported his arguments with case titled U.P. State Electricity Board & Ors.-Appellants Vs Sheo Bharoshe-Respondent 2000(2) Consumer Protection Judgments page 322. He further contended that High Tension Electric wires 132 KV/132000 volts are passing over the house of complainant, but complainant never requested the opposite party to remove these wires as alleged by the complainant because the wires are existing at the site since 1970 i.e. much before the construction of the house by the complainant and even the complainant has not obtained any N.O.C. from opposite party or M.C.A. before raising the construction of her house. He contended that the complainant has constructed the house against the electricity rules as the distance between the house of the complainant and electric wires is less than prescribed distance and as such the complainant has violated the rules and is not entitled to any compensation. Ld. counsel for the opposite party admitted the incident but contended that the incident occurred not due to any deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party, but occurred due to fault and negligence of the child who was flying kite on the roof of the adjoining house of the complainant and kite fell on the transmission lines and when string (dor) was pulled by the child then high blast took place and said child was also injured and as such the incident has not occurred due to any fault on the part of the opposite party and even an affidavit/ certificate Ex. OP-2 was given by Rajneesh Kumar owner of the adjoining house which was also damaged in the incident stating therein that there was no negligence on the part of officials/ officers of the opposite party. He contended that the complainant has constructed house in violation of electricity rules as is clear from the certificate given by SDO of electricity Department Ex.OP-3 and the evidence brought on the file clearly proves that there was no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and complaint is totally false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

8        The incident of blast is admitted fact in this case. The contention of the complainant is that incident occurred due to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party  in which her house was extensively damaged and she spent about Rs. 6 lacs on repair of the house and as such, the opposite party is liable to pay damages because incident occurred due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party whereas contention of opposite party is that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party rather the incident of blast occurred due to fault on the part of the boy who was flying kite on the roof of the adjoining house of Rajnesh Kumar and kite fell on the transmission lines and  was entangled in the wires and when the boy pulled the kite, blast took place in the transmission lines which caused injuries to the said boy and also caused damage to the house of the complainant as well as to the adjoining house and as such there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and as such opposite party is not liable to pay any damages.

9        After going through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents produced on the file by the parties, this Forum is of the considered view that complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party which is required to be proved by the complainant at the first instance in order to succeed in the complaint. Rather the evidence brought on the file by the parties shows that the incident occurred due to negligence on the part of the boy who was flying the kite from the roof of the adjoining house which was entangled in the transmission lines and the said boy pulled the kite then due to this reason, blast took place in Transmission lines which caused injuries to said boy and also caused damages to house of complainant as well as adjoining house. In a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, it is the prime duty of the complainant  to prove that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party due to which reason, incident took place and house of the complainant was damaged. However, the complainant has proved copy of D.D.R. Ex. C.4 which was registered regarding this incident in the statement of Rajneesh Bhardwaj owner of the adjoining house in which it is mentioned that his nephew aged about 13 years was on visit to his house and was present on the roof of the house when a kite with string (Dor) passed near him and when he tried to pull  the same, a blast took place from the High Tension Electric wires which caused injuries to his nephew who was pulling kite and damaged his house. Copy of D.D.R. clearly shows that blast did not take place due to any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party nor there was any allegation in the D.D.R. that blast took place in the Transmission lines due to any fault or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Moreover, opposite party has also proved a certificate/ affidavit which was given by Rajneesh Bhardwarj owner of the adjoining house who narrated the incident and stated that no official or officer of the opposite party is responsible for the incident and it clinches the issue and shows that there was no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Moreover certificate Ex. OP2 is also proved by the opposite party which shows that distance between house and Transmission Lines should be 6.1 meter whereas the distance of the house of the complainant and transmission line was 2.27 meter. Otherwise the facts of the cases referred by the Ld. counsel for the complainant are quite distinguishable from the facts of the case in hand because in all referred cases transmission line fell or broke due to poor maintenance of the transmission line and caused the injuries or damage whereas there is no such allegations in the case in hand. Rather the case of the complainant is that the incident occurred when a kite fell on the transmission line and string(dor) was pulled by the boy who was present  on the roof of the adjoining house which caused blast. Otherwise also, a consumer Forum is to decide the cases in summary way on the basis of evidence and documents proved on the file by the parties as no witness is normally examined or cross examined before the Consumer Forum and the evidence and document produced on the file particularly the affidavit/certificate  Ex. OP-2 of Rajneesh Kumar owner of the adjoining house clearly shows that there was no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has alleged in the complaint that she asked and requested the Opposite Party many times to shift the high tension electric wires, but the Opposite Party  did not shift the wires but the complainant has not produced copy of any application or any other evidence  on the file to show that she requested the Opposite Party  to shift the high tension electric wires or she protested when the high tension electric wires were being erected after the construction of her house, and it shows that the allegation of the complainant to this effect is without any force.   As such, complainant has failed to prove on the file that incident occurred due to deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the opposite party which caused damage to her house and electronic goods of her house and as such the complainant is not entitled to recover any compensation under the complaint.