Haryana

StateCommission

A/187/2015

DHBVNL - Complainant(s)

Versus

SURJEET SINGH - Opp.Party(s)

B.D.BHATIA

02 Mar 2016

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.187 of 2015

Date of Institution: 02.03.2015

Date of Decision: 02.03.2016

1. SDO, Sub Urban, sub Division, Sirsa, DHBVNL,Sirsa.
2. Executive Engineer, DHBVNL,Sirsa.

     …..Appellants

                                                Versus

 

Surjeet Singh, aged 46 years S/o Sh.Moji Ram, R/o Village Phulkan, Tehsil and District Sirsa.

         …..Respondent

 

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.B.D.Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants.

Mr.Pardeep Solath, Advocate counsel for the  respondent.

 

                                      O R D E R

 

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI, MEMBER:

 

1. SDO Sub Urban, Sub Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijali Vitran Nigam Ltd. (DHBVNL), Sirsa and Anr.-respondents are in appeal against the Order dated 28.01.2015 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short “District Forum”), Sirsa, whereby the complaint of Surjeet Singh - Complainant has been allowed and the OP has been directed to pay him Rs.50,000/- as well as litigation charges of Rs.1100/-
2. In brief, the complainant has tubewell electric connection and he has been paying the electricity bills, issued to him, from time to time. He alongwith his brother, are irrigating their agricultural land measuring 25 acres with electric connection, from a transformer of 63 KVA, placed in the adjoining field. On 20.08.2011, the transformer got burnt and on 23.08.2011, a joint application was submitted by them to the Sub Divisional Officer of the OPs, who got the necessary inquiry made. Concerned officer reported that high tension coil of the transformer had burnt. Thereupon, the Sub Divisional Officer told the complainant to get the transformer from concerned J.E. As per the policy of the OP, electric power to the allocated tubewell has to be restored, within a period of 48 to 72 hours. However, the complainant’s alleged that when the concerned J.E. was contacted, he demanded illegal gratification. The complainant refused, as a result of which, despite allocation of the transformer on 28.08.2011, it was not installed at their site, but was installed in the field of somebody else. Aggrieved against this act of the J.E. of the OP, his Narma crop sown on 16 acres, got damaged, resulting into loss of Rs.90,000/-. 
3. According to the OPs, the transformer was burnt on 26.08.2011 but the same was not available in the Divisional stores. It was allotted to the complainant only on 29.08.2011 after the applicant‘s whose names figured higher in seniority list dated 15.09.2011 and also in other seniority list 26.09.2011. However, the transformers of the complainant as also of one Het Ram were restored on 29.09.2011.
4. Against the impugned order dated 28.01.2015, the OPs has filed Appeal before us contending that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the Instructions issued by the Appellants-Nigam. Admittedly, the transformer supplying electricity to the complainant was damaged on 23.08.2011 but it was only after completing all the formalities, the new transformer was installed on 11.10.2011. Therefore, according to the appellant learned District Forum allowed compensation of Rs.50,000/- without any evidence on record.  

5.

6. The crux of the whole matter is simple i.e. delay has been certainly caused by the OP in installing the transformer. Therefore, they are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss suffered by him due to the damage of the crop. But, the stand of the OPs is correct to the extent that the complainant has failed to produce any cogent evidence on record regarding the actual loss suffered by him, except his own affidavit. However, it is evident on record that the complainant remained without transformer from August to October during which season the water was essential for the crops. It is also proved that the complainant made a number of visits to the OPs for immediate installation of the transformer. The area of the land under crop being 16 acres it is a matter of common knowledge that the loss suffered by the complainant must be quite extensive. It clearly shows the negligence on the part of the O.Ps.  Hon’ble National Commission has opined in Executive Engineer Vs. Atmaram Kisanrao Aute & Anr. 2016 (1)  CPR 260 (NC) that electricity company is duty bound to ensure smooth and safe supply of power.  If there is any laxity on the part of the electricity company then it is to be considered as deficiency in service and is liable to pay the compensation.  This case is also covered by this case law.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual position, we partly allow the appeal of the OP and set aside the impugned order passed by the District Forum and we reduce the amount awarded as under:-
   1. Rs.25,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till the payment is made for mental harassment and agony.  
   2. Rs.1100/- for litigation expenses.
8. With this modification, appeal stands disposed of.

 

March 02nd, 2016                   Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                   Member                                               Judicial Member                                              Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.