Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/488/2010

Jai Chand S/o Teja S/o Nandu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The S.D.O. Op.UHBVN - Opp.Party(s)

S.C.Jindal

18 Feb 2016

ORDER

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

                                                                                    Complaint No. 488 of 2010.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 19.05.2010.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 18.02.2016.

Jai Chand aged 56 years son of ShriTeja son of Nandu, resident of village Mandhar, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar, since deceased now represented by his L.R.:  

Jai Dev son of Shri Jai Chand, resident of village Mandhar, Sub Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                 …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. The S.D.O. Op. U.H.B.V. Sub Division, Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.
2. Executive Engineer, OP, U.H.B.V.N. ltd. Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. M.D. , U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. Sector-6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

 

                                                                                                     ...Opposite parties/Respondents.

4. SomLal son of ShriTeja son of Nandu,
5. Rajesh son of Bool Chand son of Teja, both residents of village Mandhar, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                             …Performa respondents.

 

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. S.C.Jindal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. Karnail Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondentsNo.1 to 3.

              OPs No.4 & 5 already ex-parte vide order dated 09.12.2014.

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant  Jai Chand 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. 75,000/- on account of loss of crop/produce due to sparking of wires and caused fire and on account of expenses incurred by the complainant on cultivation i.e. irrigation, labour pesticides, fertilizers etc. and further to pay compensation as well as cost of proceedings.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is owner in possession of land measuring 21kanal 7 marlas out of land measuring 29 kanal 13 marlas comprised in Khewat No. 10, Khatauni No.22, Khasra No.192, 812/1, 817, 818, 819 situated within the revenue estate of village Mandhar, Sub Tehsil Radaur, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. The tubewell conection bearing account No. J-132 is installed in khasra No.812/1 in possession of complainant, who is drawing power from same transformer. The complainant sown wheat crop in land measuring 21 kanal 7 marlas in his land and the same had become mature for harvesting. On 10.4.2010 in the noon, the loose wires installed in the field of Subhash Chand came into contact with each other and caused sparking and due to sparking the wheat crop of tenant of Subhash caught fire due to which crop of wheat in two acre of tenant of Subhash chand has been burnt and thereafter the fire spread and taken into clutches the 2 ½ acres wheat crop of complainant as the land of the complainant was adjacent to the land of said Subhashchand and inspite of best efforts made by the complainant, his neighbourer but failed to save the wheat crop of complainant and the same brunt. The complainant reported the matter to the police of P.S. Jathlana, upon which DDR No. 15 dated 11.4.2010 was lodged in P.S. Jathlana. Copy of DDR is enclosed as Annexure C-1. The OP No.1 was also informed about the incident vide letter dated 12.4.2010 but they did not bother to meet the complainant. Ultimately the complainant moved an application to the Hon’ble Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar on 12.4.2010 with the request to pass an order of compensation against the opposite parties, copy of the same is Annexure C-2 and further the complainant moved an application dated 12.4.2010 to the Deputy Director of Agriculture Yamuna Nagar to inspect the spot and to assess the loss of crop of wheat suffered by the complainant due to fire, which was the result of sparking of loose wire of the pole installed in the land of one Subhash chand and official of the Deputy commissioner, Yamuna Nagar visited the site in the presence of OPs and at that time the OPs assured the complainant to compensate at the earliest but they did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs No.1 to 3 appeared and filed its written statement whereas OPs No. 4 & 5 were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 9.12.2014. OPs No.1 to 3 filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is legally not maintainable, complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint, stopped by his own act and conduct, complaint is beyond the scope of definition of consumer as given in the Consumer Protection Act and on merit it has been submitted that no fire took place due to sparking or any looseness of the wires in question and the present complaint has been filed falsely. Moreover, no complaint has got been registered, of any kind from any persons and complaint regarding looseness of wire and fires, in the complaint book of OPs. The wires are fully tightened and hence, 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 CW/A and documents such as Photo copy of DDR dated 11.4.2010 as Annexure C-1, Copy of application dated 12.04.2010 written to Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of jamabandi for the year 2008-09 as Annexure C-3 & C-4, Photo copy of application dated 12..2010 written to Deputy Director Agriculture, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure C-5 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand OPs failed to adduce any evidence, hence their evidence was closed by court order on 9.12.2014.

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 on 10.4.2010 due to sparking/ electrocution from the loose wires his wheat crop standing in the land measuring 21 kanals 7 marlas caught fire and inspite of best efforts made by him, his neighbourer, he failed to save the wheat crop and the same was burnt at the spot. Regarding this accident, a DDR No. 15 dated 11.4.2010 (Annexure C-1) was lodged in the P.S. Jathlana. Learned counsel for the complainant further argued that ownership of the complainant is duly proved from the copy of jamabandi and khasra girdawari for the year 2008-09 (Annexure C-3 & C-4). Learned counsel for the complainant referred the case law titled as Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division No.II Karnataka State Electricity Board & Others Versus Neelakanta Gouda Siddanagouda Patil, 2002(3) CPJ page 312 National Commission and further referred the case law titled as Karnataka Electricity Board, Now known as Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. & Another Versus Smt Sharavva & Others, 2002 (2) CPJ page 269 National Commission. Lastly 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 wheat crop 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 spot. Even the complainant has never lodged his claim/complaint with the office of OPs department. A DDR bearing No.15 (Annexure C-1) has been lodged after one day from the date of alleged incident i.e. on 12.4.2010 on his own statement. Further the complainant has failed to file any documentary evidence that he was having in his own name agriculture land measuring 21 kanal 7 marlas because as per Farad Jamabandi and Khasra Girdwari for the year 2008-09 (Annexure C-3 & C-4) the complainant was having only 1/3^rd share of the land out of total land measuring 29 kanals 13 marlas i.e. only having 9 kanals 18 marlas land in his name. So, no question arise to damage the crop standing in the land measuring 21 kanal 7 marals. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that complainant has not filed any documentary evidence that father of the complainant (now deceased) was having an electricity connection in his name as no electricity bill or any evidence has been filed, so, the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer 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 filed any copy of electricity bill in his name or in the name of his father (now deceased). Even has not filed any documentary evidence that any electricity connection stands 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 was lodged with the OPs.

10.                   We have minutely perused the copy of jamabandi for the year 2008-09 (Annexure C-30 and Khasra Girdawari (Annexure c-4) and as per these documents, the father of the complainant was only owner of agriculture land measuring 9 kanals 18 marlas as 1/3^rd share of total land measuring 29 kanals 13 marlas whereas the complainant alleging the loss of crop standing in the land measuring 21 kanals 7 marlas. The complainant has also not filed ay cogent evidence proving that fire took place due to electrocution/ loose wires. 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 evidence on this aspect which can be decided by the Civil Court. To decide such type of cases Civil Court is a best platform. Law cited by the counsel for the complainant is not disputed but not helpful to the present case.

11.                   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.

Announced: 18.02.2016.

 

                                                (S.C.SHARMA )                       (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT