Haryana

Karnal

199/14

Sh. Shyam Sunder - Complainant(s)

Versus

SDO Uttar Haryana Bijle Vitran Nigam Limited. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Mukesh Sharma

07 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                               Complaint No.199 of 2014

                                                             Date of instt.:18.07.2014

                                                              Date of decision:7.12.2016

 

Shyam Sunder son of Shri Godha Ram, resident of House no.52, ward no.6, near Purana Kila, Indri, District Karnal.

 

                                                                   ……..Complainant.

                                      Vs.

1. Sub Divisional Officer (OP) Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Indri, District Karnal.

2. Executive Engineer, Sub Urban Division no.1, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sector-12, Karnal.

 

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

 

Present:-      Sh.Mukesh Sharma Advocate for the complainant.

                    Sh. P.S.Bhatti Advocate for the Opposite parties.

                  

 ORDER:

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that his wife is the owner of agricultural land measuring 2 acres, situated at Indri. He got installed tubewell in the said land in his name and obtained electric connection for running the said tubewell, bearing account no.T-40 and new account no.AP26-1373. In the year 2009 the handle of G.O.Switch was not working properly, due to which supply of electricity to the tubewell was not proper, G.O.Switch was continuously sparking. Resultantly, there was break of supply of electricity/low voltage/fluctuation in voltage. He immediately complained to the complaint centre at village Khera. Written complaint was also made in the register of the opposite parties. Then, Shiv Kumar Assistant Line Man (ALM) reached the fields and affixed the conductor blade on GO Switch from which the electricity was supplied to the tubewell. However, due to the non-affixing of conductor blade properly, the G.O. Switch gave sparking and supply of electricity to the tubewell was not proper. Due to improper supply of electricity motor of his tubewell burnt. He got repaired the motor from M/s Bharat Electric Works, Main Bazar Indri and paid Rs.2000/-as rewinding charges. He could not irrigate his crop of Sugarcane for 10 days, due to which the crop had ruined upto 50%. He again complained at the complaint centre, but the incharge of the complaint centre did not respond. Ultimately, he moved application to opposite party no.1, but opposite party no.1 also did not get rectified the fault of the G.O. Switch. On account of interrupted supply of electricity his motor burnt three times till December, 2013 and every time he had to pay Rs.2000/-2200/- for rewinding of the motor. He also suffered loss of Rs.1,20,000/-for less production of his crop due to deficiency in service by the opposite parties. He moved a complaint to the Executive Engineer i.e. opposite party no.2, but opposite parties neither rectified the fault of G.O. Switch nor paid even a single penny as compensation.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action to file the complaint that the complaint is not legally maintainable that the complainant has not approached this forum with clean hands; that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint in view of provisions of Section 145 of the Indian Electricity Act and that the complaint is an abuse of the process of law and has been filed just to humiliate and harass the opposite parties.

                   On merits, it has been denied that in the year 2009 the handle of G.O.Switch was not working properly and that the G.O. Switch was giving continuous sparking. It has been submitted that no complaint in the year 2009 about the alleged problem in G.O.Switch was made by the complainant. The electric motor of the complainant was never burnt due to any fault on the part of the opposite parties. Motor might have been burnt due to some other reasons. Whenever, the complainant visited the office of the opposite parties for removal of problem of G.O. switch, the problem was removed by the officials. The complainant is retired ALM and as such it does not lie in his mouth to say that the officials of opposite parties did not bother for him. The complainant has not suffered any loss as alleged. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit EX.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to C4 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, the affidavit of Shree Bhagwan Goyal SDO has only been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                As per the case of the complainant, in the year 2009 the handle of G.O.Switch of his tubewell was not working properly, due to which the supply of electricity to the tubewell was not proper and there were breaks in supply of electricity/low voltage/fluctuation in voltage. He complained to the complaint centre and on that Shiv Kumar ALM affixed the conductor blade on G.O. switch, but the conductor blade was not fitted properly and switch gave continuous sparking. On account of defect in G.O. switch, the motor of his tubewell burnt thrice till December, 2013 and rewinding of the same took 10/12 days due to which his crop of sugarcane damaged and he suffered loss of Rs.1,20,000/-.

7.                The complainant in his affidavit Ex. CW1/A reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. The copies of the application moved by him to Executive Engineer Operations Circle Karnal and Sub Divisional Officer i.e. opposite party no.1 regarding problem of the G.O. switch one lying on the file, though these documents have not been tendered in evidence. However, the same can be taken into consideration, because this forum is to follow summary procedure. The opposite parties have only filed the affidavit of Shree Bhagwan Goyal SDO in support of their case, wherein it has been denied that the G.O. switch was not working properly and gave continuous sparking due to which the supply of electricity to the tubewell of the complainant was not proper.

8.                From the affidavit of the complainant coupled with the copies of the applications made by him to the authorities of the opposite parties, it is established that he had made complaint to the authorities regarding problem of the G.O. switch. There is no documentary evidence of the opposite parties, which may indicate that the defect in the G.O. switch was removed completely. Had the defect been removed completely, then the complainant would not have moved complaint to the higher authorizes for removal of the defect. Therefore, the sole affidavit Ex.OP1 is not sufficient to rebut the evidence of the complainant regarding defect in the G.O. switch of his tubewell. Non-removal of the defect completely in the G.O. switch by the opposite parties certainly amounted to deficiency in service, which would have caused mental harassment to the complainant.

9.                The complainant has also alleged that the motor of his tubewell burnt thrice due to defect in the G.O. switch, which was not removed by the opposite parties despite repeated complaints and he also suffered loss of Rs.1,20,000/- as his sugarcane crop had damaged. Apart from his affidavit, he has produced the copy of the Khasra Girdawari for the crops of Kharif 2012 and Rabi 2013 Ex.C1 and the receipts Ex.C2 and Ex.C4 issued by Bharat Electric Works regarding rewinding of the motor. A perusal of the Khasra Girdawari shows that the land was owned by Krishna Kumari, the wife of the complainant and not by the complainant. In the complaint also the complainant has submitted that the land was owned by his wife. Therefore, in such a situation, if any loss was suffered due to damage of sugarcane crop on account of defect in  G.O. switch, then Krishna Kumari the owner of the land could have the cause of action to claim loss from the opposite parties and the complainant had no right to raise any claim. The complainant has not filed the present case as special or general attorney of Krishna Kumari. Therefore, his claim regarding loss suffered due to damage of the crop does not lie. Even otherwise, there is no definite evidence, which may establish that the complainant had suffered loss due to damage of the crop of sugarcane on account of defect in the G.O. switch. Therefore, looking from any angle, he is not entitled to get any compensation regarding the alleged loss of crop. So far as the receipt Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 are concerned, the same only establish that the motor was got rewound by the complainant on 11.11.2012, 10.10.2011 and 6.7.2012. The motor could have burnt due to some other reasons also and there is no direct evidence or expert evidence to establish that the motor had burnt due to defect in the G.O. switch. Therefore, the complainant cannot be awarded any compensation for the amount spent by him for rewinding of his motor.

10.              As a sequel of aforesaid discussion, we accept the present complaint partly and direct the opposite parties to rectify the defect in G.O.Switch of the tubewell of the complainant and to pay Rs.5500/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment suffered by him and for the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 30 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 07.12.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member