Haryana

Ambala

CC/207/2014

Devi Dayal s/o Waryam - Complainant(s)

Versus

S.D.O.UHBVN LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Jaideep Prashar

26 May 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AMBALA

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        : 207 of 2013

                                                          Date of Institution         : 22.08.2013

                                                          Date of decision   : 26.05.2017

 

          Devi Dayal S/o Shri Waryam, aged 62 years R/o Village Ismailpur, P.O. Chaurmastpur, Tehsil & Distt. Ambala.    

……. Complainant.

 

 

1. Sub Divisional Officer, (OP) Sub-Divisional, UHBVNL; Choumastpur, Ambala.
2. Superintending Engineer, (OP) Circle, UHBVN; Ambala.

 

 ….…. Respondents.

 

 

BEFORE:   SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT

                   SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER

                   MS. ANAMIKA GUPTA, MEMBER                          

 

 

Present:       Sh. Jaideep Prasher, counsel for complainant.

                   Sh. Saravjeet Singh, counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER:

 

                   In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint is that on 18.07.2009, at about 01.00p.m. two female buffaloes of the complainant were grazing near village pond/drain and had gone for drinking water in the village pond/drain when both the buffaloes entered in the pond/drain, all of a sudden both the buffaloes were electrocuted and had died on the spot due to the broken electric wires lying in the pond/drain. The said electric wires were being installed by the Ops for the supplies of electric power from 11 K.V. Mallour Feeder. Further submitted that DDR was also got lodged vide Rapat No.17 dated 18.07.2009 with the Police of P.S. Nanoela, Distt. Ambala and the postmortem of both the buffaloes was conducted by the doctor of Animal Husbandry Department, Ambala and it was revealed that both the buffaloes were pregnant at the time of their death. Further submitted that the said buffaloes were purchased by the complainant for a sum of Rs.80,000/- i.e. Rs.40,000/- each and the matter was reported to the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala vide letter dated 27.07.2009 and to the Ops also but the Ops failed to make the compensation to the complainant and lingered on the matter on the pretext that an investigation would be conducted by the higher officials and only then compensation would be made to the complainant. Further submitted that investigation was conducted on 15.12.2011 by the Asstt. Engineer to Chief Electrical Inspector, Haryana whereby, in the said investigation report it was observed that both the buffaloes met with fatal accident due to electric shock on 18.07.2009 on account of breakage of earth wire of the 11 K.V. Mallour Feeder which fell down on the ground/drain and while both the buffaloes had gone for drinking water and in the process buffaloes entangled with the broken wire and got electrocuted and had died on spot. In the said investigation report the OP have been held responsibility for the fatal accident and inspite of the investigation conducted by the competent authority of the Ops, the Ops failed to make the compensation to the complainant despite several visits and  requests. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                Upon notice OPs appeared and filed written statement submitting that  it is in correct that the complainant were electrocuted on 18.07.2009 and the broken wires were lying in the pond which were installed by the Ops for the supply of the electric power from 11 KV Mallour Feeder. Further submitted that no DDr as alleged was registered in PS Nanoela, District, Ambala and no such post mortem of the buffaloes as alleged in the para of the complaint was conducted by the doctor of Husbandry Department. Any such DDR and post mortem report, if produced by the complainant is false and fabricated documents and the complainant be put to strict proof thereof. Further submitted that the value of the buffaloes has not been assessed by the Veterinary Surgeon in the post mortem report prepared by him.

3.                To prove his version complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-X along with documents as annexure C-1 and C-10 and close his evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OPs has also tendered affidavit as Annexure R-1 and closed his evidence.

4.                We have heard learned counsel for the complainant and carefully gone through the case file. The grievance of the complainant is that on 18.07.2009, two female buffaloes of the complainant entered in the pond/drain all of a sudden both the buffaloes were electrocuted and had died on the spot due to the broken electric wires lying in the pond/drain. The said electric wires were being installed by the Ops for the supplies of electricity power from 11 K.V. Mallour Feeder.

                   Counsel for the OPs has drawn our attention that the present complainant does not fall under the definition of the consumer. We have gone through the definition of consumer as defined in Section 2(I) (d) (i) which reads as under:

                   “Consumer means any person who-

(i)                “buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or party paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any use of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose”.

(ii)               “Hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of) the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person (but does not include a person who avails of such services of any commercial purpose”

                   Similarly in the present case, complainant has not produced any evidence whether he is a consumer of the OPs. He also failed to place on record whether he has taken any electrical connection from the OPs. It means that the complainant is not a consumer of the Ops. Hence, complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer and hired the services from the OP. So, the complaint devoid of merits and same is hereby dismissed with no order to costs. However, complainant  is at liberty to file the fresh complaint on same cause of action before appropriate Court/Forum and he may seek the help for condonation delay in accordance with law laid down in judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works Vs. PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(3) SCC Pg.583. Assistant of the Forum is directed to hand over original documents if any to the complainant after retaining photo copies of the same on file, on proper receipt and verification. Copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced on :26.05.2016                             

                                                                                             Sd/-

                                                                                    (D.N. ARORA)

                                                                                             President

 

                            Sd/-

        (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                              Member

 

                                Sd/-

               (ANAMIKA GUPTA)

                                                                                              Member