Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/505/2011

Karnail Singh S/o Gurpal Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director,UHBVN LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

Balbir Singh

21 Mar 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 505 of 2011.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 18.05.2011.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 21.03.2016.

Shri Karnail Singh son of Sh. Gurpal Singh @ Sh. Kirpal Singh R/0 Village Gadhauli PO Thana Chhapper Tehsil Jagadhri District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                            

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. The Managing Director, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.
2. The Superintending Engineer (OP) Circle, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Kanhiya Sahib Chowk, Yamuna Nagar. 
3. The Executive Engineer/ Sub Urban Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Jagadhri Near Kanhiya Sahib Chowk, Yamuna Nagar. 
4. The Sub Divisional Officer,(OP) Sub Division, Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Mustafabad Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.  

 

                                                                                                  ... Respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Balbir Singh, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Satish Sangwan, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Karnail Singh has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,21,000/- on account of loss of turi etc. due to sparking of wires and caused fire.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is running business of Agriculture in the revenue estate of village Gadhauli PO Thana Chhapper, District Yamuna Nagar and also running latest design dairy farm in which he has more than 100 cows alongwith calves, buffalos etc. The loose circuit 11000 voltage wire is running across the Agriculture land and particularly near his residence which he has a dairy farm house on Ambala-Jagadhri road. All the connections of wire were loose. The complainant made various reports to Ops to repair the same and also to tighten the same to avoid any uncalled for eventuality. The matter was also reported to OPs No. 2 & 3 but they turned deaf ear to the same and paid no heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Due to the negligence of the OPs, there was short circuit in the electric wires resulting therein all the turi (straw) was turned into ashes, causing heavy damages to the complainant. On 6.5.2011, a complaint was lodged by the complainant with PS Thana Chhapper vide Rapat No. 12-A dated 6.5.2011 wherein it has been mentioned that due to short circuit of the wires whole of turi (straw) was turned into ashes causing loss of 150 quintal of turi amounting to Rs. 70,000/-. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is abuse of process and law, the complainant has filed the present complaint with a view to harass and humiliate the OPs, no locus standi to file and maintain the present complaint, complaint is not legally maintainable and on merit it has been submitted that the site of the complainant was checked personally and found that the H.T. line is in good condition/properly sagged and the G.O. installed in operation which cannot make any spark and there is no possibility which can make spark that would cause the fire. The complainant has not filed any consumer complaint about this issue in the complaint register placed at village Gadhauli from 1.5.2011 to 7.5.2011. Photo copy of complaint register is Annexure R-1. There was no intimation regarding this incident in the office of OPs. The present complaint of the complainant is totally false, frivolous, baseless and concocted one and the same has been filed just to harm and harass the OPs. Hence, the OPs are not liable to pay any kind of compensation to the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX and documents such as Photo copy of DDR dated 06.05.2011 as Annexure C-1 and C-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Rajbir Saroha, SDO, UHBVNL Mustfabad as Annexure RX and document such as  Photo copy of complaint register from 1.5.2011 to 7.5.2011 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.   

6.                     We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents carefully and minutely placed on the file. Counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments made in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for opposite parties reiterated the averments made in reply and prayed for its dismissal.

7.                     The only plea of the counsel for the complainant is that due to sparking/ electrocution from the loose wires his turi (Straw) lying in the Koop caught fire and inspite of best efforts made by him, his neighbourer, he failed to save the turi (straw) and the same was burnt at the spot. Regarding this accident, a DDR No. 12-A dated 6.5.2011 (Annexure C-1) was lodged in the P.S. Thana Chhapper and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

8.                     On the other hand, Learned counsel for the OPs argued that complainant has totally failed to prove his case and in the absence of cogent evident it cannot be presumed that turi (straw) of the complainant caught fire due to sparking of the loose wires. No complaint either before or after was lodged with the OPs that wire was loose at the spot. Even, the complainant has never lodged his claim/complaint with the office of OPs department. The alleged DDR bearing No.12A (Annexure C-1) has been lodged by the complainant regarding the incident on his own statement. Learned counsel for the Ops draw our attention towards report of the J.E. (Annexure R-1) wherein it has been mentioned that “he personally checked the HT line and found the same in good condition and there was no possibility of any sparking which could cause the fire” and further draw our attention towards photo copy of complaint register w.e.f. 1.5.2011 to 7.5.2011, wherein no report regarding loose wire or any loss due to sparking was found lodged and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that complainant has miserably failed to prove that in what manner he falls under the definition of consumer of the Ops as he has not disclosed that whether he was having any electricity connection in his name. Further, the complainant has also failed to prove that there was any deficiency in service on the part of OPs as no copy of complaint has been filed which was ever either before or after this incident was lodged with the OPs. Even the complainant has not filed any affidavit of any neighbourer or any respectable person of the village or any revenue authority to prove the loss suffered by him due to sparking. The complainant has only filed copy of DDR Annexure C-1 which was recorded on the affidavit of Kairnail Singh himself. Even the complainant has not filed any copy of jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari to prove the ownership of any land.

10.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that complainant has failed to prove his case and any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Moreover, the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as he has miserably failed to prove himself as consumer. Besides this, the complainant has not disclosed in the complaint that on what date and time of incident of fire took place in the Koop (turi). So, without any documentary evidence, we have no option except to dismiss the complaint. As such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court to redress his grievances, if so advised. 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.

Announced: 21.03.2016.

 

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                              (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                                MEMBER