Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/744/2013

Hans Raj S/o Chandgi Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O. UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Vijay Kumar Chaudhary

09 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                        Complaint No. 744  of  2013.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 08.10.2013.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 09.06.2016.

Hans Raj aged about 70 years son of Shri Chandgi Ram, resident of Deha Basti, Chhota Bans Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. S.D.O. (OP) UHBVNL, Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhir, District Ymauna Nagar.
2. X.E.N. UHBVNL, Yamuna Nagar, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
3. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.                                                                                                                                                                                                            … Respondents.

                         

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Vijay Kumar Chaudhary, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

              Sh. Zile Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Hans Raj filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay the cost of mare which was died due to electrocution and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses.     

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant was having one mare colour steel gray aged about 6 years and height 5’ for his livelihood as the complainant used to take his mare in the marriage etc. the complainant purchased the said mare on 25.05.2013 from one Fouji son of Sh. Kashmiri Lal, for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-. After completion of the work, complainant used to leave his mare for gracing grass near his house. On 21.09.2013 at about 7.A.M. mare of the complainant was passing near by the pole of the electricity installed by the Ops and suddenly she suffered an electric shock and died at the spot. The complainant had taken photographs of the same. On the same day, the official of the Ops were informed but they did not come at the spot. Postmortem of the same mare was also conducted by the veterinary surgeon. Thereafter, the complainant completed all the formalities and requested the Ops to pay the compensation but the Ops flatly refused. Hence, this complaint.

3                      Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs; this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as there exists no relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties; complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint; complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit all the contents of the complaint has been denied being false and manipulated. There was no current running in the alleged electricity pole of the Ops. No complaint regarding passing of current in the alleged electric pole was ever made to the Ops by the complainant or anybody else. Since the mare of the complainant did not die due to any negligence on the part of Ops, so, question of payment of any compensation does not arise at all. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CW/A, affidavit of Dhira son of Kisna Ram as Annexure CW/B, Affidavit of Dallu Ram son of Kartara as Annexure CW/C and documents such as Photo copy of ration card as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of postmortem report as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of application dated 21.09.2013 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of receipt for purchasing of mare as Annexure C-4, Photograph as Annexure C-5 and closed his evidence.

5                      On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Bhupinder Singh, SDO as Annexure RW/A and documents such as Report of Dilbag Singh Lineman as Annexure R-1 and Report of Amit Kumar JE-I as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

6.                     We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely and carefully.

7.                     Learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that mare of the complainant died due to current which was running in the pole installed by the Ops and draw out attention towards the postmortem report Annexure C-2 wherein the reason of death of the mare has been shown as electrocution. Learned counsel for the complainant further draw our attention towards the affidavits of Sh. Dhira and Dallu ram as Annexure CW/B and CW/C and further referred the receipt Annexure C-4 vide which the complainant purchased the mare in question for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/-. Lastly, prayed for acceptance of complaint.   

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Ops hotly argued that there exists no relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties as no electricity bill has been placed on file to prove that complainant was consumer of the Ops. Further learned counsel for the Ops draw our attention towards the report of lineman as well as J.E-1 Annexure R-1 and R-2 wherein it has been mentioned that they have checked the LT line with staff and there was no fault or breakage in the abovesaid Lt line and further there was no electric current in the PCC pole as alleged by the complainant. Learned counsel for the Ops further argued that voluminous evidence is required to prove that there was any negligence on the part of the Ops but in the present complaint, the complainant has totally failed to prove that mare of the complainant had died due to the negligence of the Ops. In the absence of any negligence, it cannot be held that there was any deficiency in service on the part of Ops and complainant is entitled to get any compensation. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops as the complainant has totally failed to prove that mare of the complainant died due to the negligence on the part of the Ops. No report from any technical expert person has been placed on file to prove that the said pole was having any electric current due to which the mare of the complainant died. Moreover, the complainant has not placed on file any documentary evidence that he was having any electricity connection in his name at the time of alleged occurrence and hired the services of the Ops against consideration. It is not disputed that mare of the complainant died on 21.09.2013 which is evident from the copy of postmortem report Annexure C-2 but mere filing of copy of the postmortem report it cannot be said that there was any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  To prove these facts elaborate evidence is required and to decide such type of cases, Civil Court is the best plate form. Without commenting on the merit of the case, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law having jurisdiction if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open court. 09.06.2016.

 

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER