Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/877/2013

Babu Ram s/o Sh.Data Ram, - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO UHBVNL, - Opp.Party(s)

S.P.Banchal

03 Jan 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGA

                                                                                          Complaint No. 877 of 2013.

                                                                                          Date of institution: 04.12.2013 

                                                                                          Date of decision: 03.01.2017

 

Babu Ram aged about 80 years son of Sh. Data Ram, resident of Jubbal, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                 …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Sub Divisional Officer (Operation) Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Division Radaur, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Executive Engineer (OP) Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, Haryana.

                                                                                                                                 ...Respondents

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                         SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:           Sh. SP Banchal, Advocate for complainant.

                         Sh. RP Kaushik, Advocate for OPs.

ORDER

 

1                         The present complaint has been filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.                    Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is bona fide user of the domestic electricity Tubewell  connection No.L-0413 and paying all the electricity bills regularly as per demand of the respondents (referred as OP Nigam). The complainant is a marginal farmer and having agriculture land in the revenue estate of village Jubbal, Sub Tehsil Raduar, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar and the OP department has installed and pulled up the electricity wires over the filed (1 ½ acre land) of the complainant in which Sugarcane crop of the complainant was existing. . The electricity wires were not got tightened in time and the same were laying/hanging in loose condition, the matter was usually used to be reported to the OP Nigam but they kept on lingering the matter on one or the other pretexts. Unfortunately, on 25.10.2013 afternoon, due to loose wires condition, the sparking taken place and which pick the fire in the sugarcane crop of the complainant, and with in some time the entire sugarcane of the complainant standing in 1 ½ acre land was turned into ash. The matter regarding fires taken place due to electrical sparking has also been published in Local Hindi Newspaper Amar Ujala on 26.10.2013. A DDR bearing No.7 (A) dated 27.10.2013 was also recorded and the matter was reported to the officials of the OPs Nigam to provide damages compensation but the officials of the OPs Nigam did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainant. Lastly prayed for directing the OP Nigam to pay Rs.1,85,000/- to the complainant as compensation due to damage done by the electricity sparking which had taken place due to sole negligence of the OP Nigam and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice OPs appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable; complainant is estopped from filing this complaint by his own act and conduct; complainant has neither locus standi to file the present complaint nor any cause of action has accured to him; complainant is beyond the scope of definition of the consumer as given in the Consumer Protection Act; there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs Nigam; the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present litigation, which can only be decided by the Civil Court after taking extensive evidence from the parties both oral as well as documentary evidence; complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed true and material facts and on merit it has been stated that no such complaint with regard to loose wires were ever made by the complainant. Electricity lines are being maintained by the officials of the opposite parties regularly. It has been denied that fire took place due to sparking in wires and sugarcane crop of complainant was burnt and loss was caused to complainant, rather this false complaint has been filed by the complainant just to extort money from OP Nigam. It has been further mentioned that different versions have been given in the complaint and DDR. If complainant would have informed OP, OP Nigam could have investigated the matter and truth would had come in light. Mere publishing of news in newspaper or lodging DDR is not sufficient to establish the cause of fire. Rest contents of the complainant were controverted and stands taken in preliminary objections were reiterated. 

4.                     In support of the case, learned counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CW/A and photocopy Fardjamabandi  to the year 2009-10 as Annexure C1, electricity bill for the period April to May, 2013 as Annexure C2, photocopy of DDR bearing No.7(A) dated 27.10.2013 as Annexure C3; photographs as Annexure C4 to C6 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, ld. counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of  Dharamvir Singh, SDO as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.

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

7.                     It is not disputed that an electricity connection bearing No. L-0413 stands taken in the name of complainant i.e. Babu Ram son of Shri Data Ram, which is duly evident from electricity bill as (Annexure C2). It is also not disputed that some agriculture land stands in the name of Babu Ram son of Data Ram, which is also evident from the copy of Fard Jamabandi Annexure C1. It is also not disputed that DDR bearing No.7(A) dated 27.10.2013 was registered in the police station Radaur on the statement of Mahender Singh son of Babu Ram which is duly evident from the copy of DDR (Annexure C3). Learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that crop of Sugarcane standing in the agricultural land measuring 1 ½ acre was burnt due to sparking in the electricity wires which were in loose condition. Learned counsel for the complainant draw our attention towards the photocopy of photographs Annexure C4 to C6 and further referred copy of DDR (Annexure C3) and argued that complainant has suffered financial loss due to the negligence on the part of the OPs Nigam. Hence, the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs.1,85,000/-  along with compensation as well as litigation expenses.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs Nigam Shri Raj Pal Kaushik argued at length that complainant has totally failed to prove his case that there was any negligence on the part of the OPs Nigam. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that even the complainant has also not placed on file any documents from which it can be established that Sugarcane crop caught the fire due to sparking of electricity wires. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that complainant has not placed on file any affidavit of any neighbour of the field or any other person to prove that there was sparking in the electric wires and the alleged fires took place due to sparking. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that the complainant has also failed to prove that any sugarcane crop was standing in his agriculture land and from filing the copy of Jamabandi , it cannot be ascertained that complainant has sown Sugarcane Crop in his field. The photographs referred by learned counsel for the complainant, have no evidentiary value as from these photograph it cannot be said that these photograph are relating to the field/agriculture land of the complainant himself and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs Nigam as the complainant has totally failed to prove by any documentary evidence/cogent evidence that he ever moved an application to the OP Nigam in regard to the alleged loss. Even the complainant has not disclosed any particular date, month etc. in his complaint on which he moved an application to the OP Nigam regarding loose wires. Further, from the perusal of copy of DDR (Annexure C3) it is evident that this DDR has been lodged on 27.10.2013 whereas the alleged incident took place on 25.10.2013 at 02:00 pm. We have also perused the photocopy of Fard Jamabandi (Annexure C1) but in this photocopy of Jamabandi also it is nowhere mentioned that any Sugarcane crop was standing in the Agricultural land of the complainant. No report from any Revenue Authority or any Executive Department or even from the villagers or neighbourer of the agricultural land in question has been placed on file by the complainant to prove that alleged incident took place due to the sparking of the electric wires. Further, the complainant has also not placed any documents or approved site plan to prove that the electric wires were passing over the agricultural land of the complainant where the sugarcane crop was standing. Even, from the perusal of the photograph (Annexure C4) it cannot be said that the entire Sugarcane crop standing in 1 ½ acre of the Agriculture land was burnt as alleged by the complainant in his complaint.

            Further, this Forum cannot assess the actual loss suffered by the complainant in absence of any cogent evidence as the complainant has not filed any cogent evidence on this aspect which can be decided by the Civil Court. To decide such type of cases, elaborate evidence as well as cross examination of parties is required to decide these cases for which Civil Court is the best platform and such type of cases cannot be decided in a summary way.

10.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, we have no option except to dismiss the complaint. So, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant can redress his grievances, if so, advised before the Civil Court/Competent authority. Copies 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.

Pronounced in open court: 03.01.2017.

                                                                                          (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

                                                                                          DCDRF Yamuna Nagar

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER