Haryana

StateCommission

A/1068/2016

UHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHOAB - Opp.Party(s)

ALKA JOSHI

06 Sep 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA PANCHKULA

                                                                                First appeal No.1068 of 2016

Date of the Institution:07.11.2016

Date of Decision: 06.09.2017

 

1.      The Executive Engineer, Operation, Sub-Division No.1, 132 KV Power House Village Fazilpur, Opp. Raj Filling Station, Sonepat.

2.      The S.D.O, UHBVNL, (Operation) Sub-Division Murthal, Rajiv Colony, Opp. Geetanjali Garden Wali Gali, Murthal Road, Sonepat.

                                                                             .….Appellants

Versus

Shoab son of Shri Abdul Gaffar, R/o 7/411, Fali Maliya, Barot (U.P).

                                                                             .….Respondent

 

CORAM:    Mr.R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member

                    Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member

 

Present:-    Mrs.Alka Joshi, Advocate counsel for the appellants.

                    Mr.Sushil Jain, Advocate for respondent.

 

O R D E R

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1.    The Executive Engineer, Operation, Sub Division No.1, and Anr. is in appeal against the Order dated 15.09.2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat (for short ‘District Forum’), whereby the complaint of one Shoab resident of Barot-UT has been allowed, by directing the OP-UHBVN to pay a lumpsum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rs.one lac fifty thousand) as compensation to the complainant for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

2.                Briefly stated, as alleged by the complainant, on 31.08.2013 he came to attend the marriage in the house of his relative Zahid at Murthal. A 11000 Voltage electric line was passing over the roof of house of Zahid. When the complainant reached at the roof, suddenly he received electric shock and due to this, he received burnt injuries on his neck, both hands, left knee and feet. The complainant was first taken to General Hospital, Sonepat, but he was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak. Lateron, he was taken to Anand Nirogdham Hospital, Meerut and incurred Rs.10 lacs on his treatment. The complainant claimed a compensation of Rs.20 lacs from OPs, alleging deficiency in service on their part.  But as the claim was not met, he approached the District Forum for the Redressal of his grievance.

3.                In their reply, OPs pleaded that when the electricity line was passed over the land there was no house of Zahid in existence. The construction was wholly unauthorized and later in point of time. Therefore, the complaint was totally false and fictitious. Moreover there was no question of electrocution even at the existing roof of the constructed house as the electric line of 11000 voltage was much higher i.e. 18 feet in height from the earth. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled to any relief or compensation as there was no negligence on the part of the respondents. However, the learned District Forum rejected the pleas of the OP and allowed the complaint by awarding the aforesaid relief to the Complainant.

4.                Against the impugned Order, the OPs/appellants have filed the present appeal before us reiterating their same pleas as raised before the District Forum. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record, from the perusal whereof it is evident that the complainant, who alleges to be resident of U.P. and had visited Murthal (Haryana) in some marriage was not a consumer of OP for the purposes of redressal of his grievance, if any, under the Consumer Protection Act. Firstly, according to the OPs the house in question was not in existence when the electricity line was passed. Secondly, as per the provisions of Rule 79 and 80 of Indian Electricity Rules 1956, the minimum horizontal and vertical clearance was required where a low and high voltage passes above or adjacent to any building. No such complaint has been filed by any other neighbour or owner of the house against the OPs on this account. Therefore, there was no possibility of electrocution, if the house was  in existence before the passing of the high or low voltage of electricity lines, as the minimum distance as required by the electricity regulation had to be maintained  between construction and the electricity lines by the OPs.

5.                In view of the aforesaid factual position and the evidence  produced by the parties on record as also keeping in view the legal infirmity in the maintainability of the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, we have no option, but to allow  the appeal of the OP. Consequently, the impugned order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

6.      The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

September 06th, 2017

Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

 

R.K.