NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2050/2009

DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RAJESH - Opp.Party(s)

MR. ARVIND NAYAR

27 Apr 2010

ORDER


NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. 2050 OF 2009
(Against the Order dated 02/03/2009 in Appeal No. 303/2009 of the State Commission Haryana)
1. DAKSHIN HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD.Through Its. Sub Divisiona Offcer Sub Division Jui Haryana ...........Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. RAJESHS/o. Shri Manphul Singh R/o. Village, Golagarh. Tehsil and District Bhiwani Haryana ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.N.P. SINGH ,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner :NEMO
For the Respondent :NEMO

Dated : 27 Apr 2010
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

 

          Learned counsel for petitioner present. Notice on three occasions were issued against respondent to secure his appearance in the proceeding, but all times he has failed to appear, which shows his reluctance to contest the proceeding. Hence, proceeding set ex-parte against him. 
          Heard learned counsel for petitioner.

          Factual matrix are that young buffalo of respondent died due to electrocution when it came in contact with astray wire of electric pole erected in the main street of village, through which current was flowing. Respondent alleged that pole did not have disc-plate to disconnect current in astray wire, which was gross negligence of petitioner. Post-mortem of dead animal was carried out by Veterinary surgeon who confirmed death by electrocution. Claim of respondent was resisted by petitioner-board on premises that even assuming facts of case to be true on its face value, that did not suggest negligence on part of board, since petitioner was not a consumer qua the Board. Both District Forum and State Commission on considerations of post-mortem report and also pleadings of parties holding petitioner deficient in service for having not taken due care, awarded compensation of Rs.23,000/- alongwith 9% interest. Regard being had to the concurrent findings of fora below on facts, there being no good reason for interference, revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. 



......................JB.N.P. SINGHPRESIDING MEMBER