Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/859/2013

Sita Ram S/o. Ramanand - Complainant(s)

Versus

U.H.B.V.N - Opp.Party(s)

G.D .Gupta

27 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                    Complaint No. 859 of 2013.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 26.11.2013.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 27.11.2015.

Sita Ram aged about 50 years son of Sh. Ramanand resident of Mukherji Park, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                     …Complainant.

 

                                    Versus

 

1. U.H.B.V.N.Ltd. Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula through its Managing Director. 
2. Asstt. Executive Engineer, City (OP) Sub-Division, Labour Colony, Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                               ..Opposite parties.  

 

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT,

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. G.D.Gupta, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               Sh. Zile Singh, Advocate, counsel for OPs.   

 

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Sita Ram has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.            

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint as alleged by the complainant are that the complainant is having an electricity connection bearing Account No. JC-20506IP in his house located in Mukharji Park, Jagadhri and paying all the bills regularly. On 29.6.2013 in the morning at about 6.30 A.M. the light of the locality in which the complainant’s house is located was off as there was some fault in the electric line, so just after restoration of the supply, there was blast and with the result electric appliances i.e. two computers, one aqua guard, one inverter, four ceiling fans, four electric tube lights of the house of complainant were damaged. Some damages were also occurred in the neighbourers house of the complainant. On this the complainant lodged his complaint with the SDO on telephone who assured that they will compensate the complainant but later on flatly refused. On this a legal notice dated 10.9.2013 (Annexure C-1) was given to the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) and also sent a complaint in written on 10.9.2013 (Annexure C-2) but all in vain. Hence, the complainant has suffered a loss, due to the damage of the electric appliances and is entitled to get Rs. 50,000/- as compensation from the OPs. Hence this complaint.  

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as there is no fault in the electric line as alleged by the complainant, no complaint regarding fault in the electric line was ever made by the complainant or anybody else with the office of OPs, complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint, complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and the complaint of the complainant is false and frivolous and on merit it has been mentioned that switch is always on for supply of the electricity from the box fitted on the pole near the house of the complainant by the official of the OPs. All the allegations leveled in the complaint are totally manipulated and after thought just to harass and humiliate the OPs. The electric appliances of the complainant house, if any, might have damaged due to his own negligence or fault. As there was no loss due to the fault of OPs, hence, no question arises of paying any amount by the OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint being false and frivolous.

4.                     To prove the case, complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit as Annexure CX and documents such as copy of registered AD legal notice dated 1.7.2013 as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of complaint dated 10.9.2013 written to SDO as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of bill dated 17.12.2013 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of application for correction of bill as Annexure C-4, Photo copy of bill for the month of January 2014 as Annexure C-5 and closed his evidence.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the opposite parties tendered an affidavit of Sh. S.L.Goel, SDO, (OP) Sub Divn. UHBVNL City Jagadhri as Annexure RW/A  and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties.

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

7.                     The only grievance of the complainant is that on 29.6.2013 in the morning at 6.30 A.M. when the light of the locality was off and after restoration of the supply there was a blast and due to that electric appliances i.e. two computers, one aqua guard, one inverter, four ceiling fans, four electric tube lights of the complainant house were damaged.

8.                     On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs argued that no complaint regarding fault in the electric line was ever made by the complainant or anybody else with the OPs and the electric appliances of the complainant house, if any, might have damaged due to his own nelgience and fault.

9.                     After hearing the parties at length, we are of the considered view that the complainant has totally failed to prove that the complainant has suffered any loss on account of electric appliances due to the faulty supply of the electricity. The complainant has totally failed to file any expert/mechanic report to prove that there was any damage to the electric appliances as stated in the complaint of the complainant. Even the complainant has not filed any documentary evidence that the electric appliances stated in the complaint were in the house of the complainant. No bill of the above noted electric appliances or report of any mechanic regarding burnt due to electric shock has been filed by the complainant. In the absence of any documentary evidence this Forum cannot held that there is any loss or damage to the appliances of the complainant and complainant has suffered any loss due to blast on electricity pole. Further the complainant has not summoned any record from the official of the OPs to prove his case that there was any fault in the electric line on the alleged date and time.

10.                   Hence, in the absence of any cogent evidence, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and the complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. 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: 27.11.2015.

                                                                                                (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                              (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                               MEMBER