Haryana

Ambala

CC/105/2011

ROOP CHAND - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN LTD - Opp.Party(s)

P.S SHARMA

30 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA.

 

       Complaint Case No. :    105 of 2011

                 Date of Institution    :     01.04.2011

                      Date of Decision      :    30.12.2016

 

1.         Roop Chand S/o Nasib Singh

2.         Ajmer Singh S/o Nasib Singh

3.         Gurdev  Kaur W/o Phool Singh

4.         Balbir Singh S/o Jagir Singh

5.         Baljit Singh S/o Jagir Singh

6.         Smt. Ishro Devi Wd/o Jagir Singh

            All residents of village Chhapra, Tehsil & District Ambala.

 

……Complainants.

 

Versus

 

1.         Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Vidyut Sadan, Sector-6,Panchkula through its Executive Engineer, Operation Division, UHBVN, 12 Cross Road, Ambala Cantt.

 

2.         The Sub Divisional Officer, Operation Sub Division, UHBVNL Kesri, Tehsil & District Ambala.

 

……Opposite Parties

 

Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

 

BEFORE:       SH. D.N. ARORA, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. PUSHPENDER KUMAR, MEMBER.

                       

Present:          Sh. P.S. Sharma, Adv. for complainants.

                        Sh. Sarvjeet Singh, Adv. for Ops.

 

ORDER.

 

                        In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that  complainants to irrigate their land  installed a submersible tubewell in their land  and obtained an electricity connection from the Op in the name of Roop Chand-complainant no.1 with a sanctioned load of 20BHP vide electricity connection bearing account no.AP08-1018-N/RR03-0063 to operate/run the said tube-well and  were making payment of bills  issued by the OP.  It has been submitted that electricity supply wires to the  tubewell  and from the tubewell of the complainants are going through the fields of the complainants were loose and the complainant many a times made complaints to the OP to set the same right but  of  no avail.  It has been submitted that on 11.04.2010, the wires of supply line passing over the above detailed agriculture land of the complainants colluded with each other  and a sparking took place and the standing wheat crop of the complainant in 81-K 4- marlas i.e. 69 kanals 10 marlas land owned by complainants and 11 kanlas 14 marlas (on contract) which was ready  for harvesting, reduced into ashes and the fire was stopped with the intervention of fire brigade. It has been  submitted that the said fire  took place due to the total negligence on the part of the opposite parties because of which complainants have to suffer a loss to the tune of Rs.2,45,000/-.  A complaint was made to the Police Station at Mullana and DDR No.35 dated 12.04.2010 was registered in this regard.  The complainants also gave a written request date 12.04.2010 to the OP No.2 for compensation as the fire took place due to the parking in the wires.  Halqa Patwari visited the spot and also gave his report.  But despite repeated visits the OP lingered on the matter on one pretext or the other and ultimately refused for the same in February 2011. So a legal notice dated 24.02.2011 served upon the Op but of no avail. Thus the complainants have prayed that the Ops are deficient in providing proper services to them.  Hence, the present complaint seeking relief as per prayer clause.

2.                     Upon notice, Ops appeared through counsel and tendered reply raising preliminary objections qua maintainability of complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it has been submitted that an agriculture electricity connection bearing A/c no.AP-08-1018-N/RR-03-0063 has been released by the OP in the name of complainant.  It has been denied that the alleged fire on 11.04.2010 in the fields of complainants occurred due to the electric wire but no complaint in this behalf was lodged by the complainants in the complaint centre of UHBVNL. However, on the representation moved by the complainants before the OP no.2, an enquiry was ordered by Op No.2  into the matter and Sh. Sunil Kumar, JE appointed as Enquiry Officer who reported that  the crops did not burn/damaged due to electricity sparkes as there was no tripping of 11KV Chhapra Feeder as per the log-sheet dated 11.04.2010 through which the electricity was being supplied to the tubewell of the complainants.  Moreover, it was also found  that no complaint was registered by the complainants with the  concerned complaint centre of UHBVNL regarding loosening of electricity supply wire to  and from the tubewell of the complainants. So, the representation  made by the complainants regarding loss of crops and consequent financial loss  before Op No.2 was found frivolous and baseless during enquiry. Hence, there is no negligence and deficiency in service on their part and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

3.                     To prove his version, counsel for complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CX alongwith documents as Annexures C-1 to C-17 and Mark A & B and closed the evidence whereas on the other hand, counsel for Ops tendered affidavits Anenxures RX & RY alongwith documents as Annexure R-1 to R-6 and closed evidence.

4.                     We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the case file very carefully.  Case of the complainant is that  due to negligence of the OP wheat crop of his fields burnt due to sparks in the electricity wire passing through his fields and  thereby he suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.2,45,000/-.  But despite lodging of a complaint with Police Station, Mullana vide DDR No.35 dated 12.04.2010 and giving of written request dated 12.04.2010 to the OP No.2 for compensation, no action has been taken by OP for releasing of compensation but of no avail despite issuance of legal notice to the Ops.  Complainant to prove his case has placed on record copy of DDR (Annexure C-4), Copy of Fire Report (Annexure C-3), copy of application dated 12.04.2010 made by complainant to SDO of OP qua the wheat crop burn (Annexure C-5), Copy of report  of Patwari (Annexures C-9 & C-10), Copy of Jamabandi (Annexure C-11) and copy of Khasra Girdawari (Annexure C-12) and copies of mutation as Annexure C-13 & C-14.  Counsel for complainant in  support of their case has placed reliance on case law rendered by Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi titled as The Assistant Executive Engineer & Ors. Vs. Sri Neelakanta Goiuda Siddanagouda Patil 2002(2) CPC- 288 and  Karnataka Power Transmission Corp. Ltd. Vs. Mani Thomas  2006(2) CPC-152 and Ankush & 3 Ors Vs. Superintending Engineer and Ors  2016(1) CPJ-383.  

                        On the other hand, counsel for OP has argued that there was no sparking  and thereby fire on 11.04.2010 in the fields of complainants. However, on the representation moved by the complainants before the OP no.2, an enquiry was ordered by Op No.2  into the matter and Sh. Sunil Kumar, JE appointed as Enquiry Officer who reported that  the crops did not burn/damage due to electricity sparkes as there was no tripping of 11KV Chhapra Feeder as per the log-sheet dated 11.04.2010 through which the electricity was being supplied to the tubewell of the complainants.  Moreover, it was also found that no complaint was registered by the complainants with the  concerned complaint centre of UHBVNL regarding loosening of electricity supply wire to  and from the tubewell of the complainants.  OP to support his case has placed on record  investigation report of S.D.Kundu SDO (Annexure R-1), Copy of report of electricity supply by J.E. (Annexure R-2), daily log of UHBVNL (Annexure R-3). Counsel for Op has placed reliance on case law rendered by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula case titled as The SDO, DHBVNL etc. Vs. Smt. Dhapa Devi & others First Appeal No.576 of 2014 decided on 14.01.2015.

5.                     After hearing learned counsel for the parties, three main question are involved in the present case:-

1.         Whether the complainants are consumer of the Opposite Parties or not?

2.         Whether the crops of the complainants has been burnt due to negligence on the part of OP?

3.         If both the above points are in favour of the complainant then to what extent, the complainant is entitled for compensation.

6.                     The first and foremost point of the case is whether the complainants are consumer or not?  It is admitted fact on record that 11KV line wires are passing over the fields of the complainants and the said line is supplying electricity to the transformer from which connection was given to the tubewell in question.  It is also admitted that  connection has been issued in the name of the complainant no.1 and other  complainants are using the said connection with the consent of complainant no.1 being the co-sharers, so they have also become consumers of  the OP. The law laid down by Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula case titled as The SDO, DHBVNL etc. Vs. Smt. Dhapa Devi & others  First Appeal No.576 of 2014 decided on 14.01.2015 is not applicable in the present case rather the case law submitted by counsel for complainant delivered by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi titled as The Assistant Executive Engineer & Ors. Vs. Sri Neelakanta Goiuda Siddanagouda Patil 2002(2) CPC- 288 and Karnataka Power Transmission Corp. Ltd. Vs. Mani Thomas 2006 (2) CPC-152 are squarely covered the case of the complainant. As such, we held that the complainants are consumers of the OP Nigam and the complainants have locus standi to file the present complaint and the same is maintainable.  

                        Now, coming to the second point, whether the crops of the complainants has been burnt due to negligence on the part of OP?  In support of this, complainant has placed on record  copy of DDR No.35 dated 11.04.2010( of the day of occurrence) lodged at Police Station, Mullana (Annexure C-4) wherein the cause of fire has  been mentioned as sparking in the wire of electricity. The complainant has also placed on record report of Fire Department (Annexure C-3)  whereby it is revealed that ‘the fire was in a farm of wheat crops in a Rakba Hema Majra owned by Roop Chand S/o Naseeb Singh of Village Chhapra and thereby estimated  value of the  loss was Rs.3,50,000/- and supposed cause of fire  has been mentioned ‘sparking of electric wire’.  Counsel for complainant has also placed on record copy of report of Patwari (Annexures C-9 & C-10), whereby he has reported that complainants have sown crops of wheat in their fields in 69K-10M and 11K-14M and the Patwari has also reported the cause of fire to the wheat crops as sparking in the electricity wires. Complainnat in support of the above facts has also submitted his affidavit Annexure CX.  In this way, version of the complainant is duly corroborated with the supporting report/documents. The complainant to prove their ownership over the land has produced revenue record of Jamabandi as Annexure C-11 and Khasra Girdawari as Annexure C-12 and mutations as Annexure C-13 & C-14.    From the above, it is proved that cause of fire  to the wheat crop of complainants was sparking in the electricity wire passing over the fields of the complainant for supplying electricity to the tubewell of complainant.  On the other hand, OP has filed the  affidavit of SDO as well as of Sh. Sunil Kumar JE who visited the spot and tendered his report  alongwith  the Daily Log Sheet  66 KV sub Station Saha of  the day of occurrence.

6.                     After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going the through the record, we are of the view that the fire had took place due to collusion of electricity wire passing over the fields of the complainant whereas the version of Op that there was no tripling on the relevant date and time and complainant has not moved any application qua sparking on their complaint centre are not tenable since,  no doubt there is any record on file which could show that  the complainant has made any complaint qua sparking of wires but after lighting of the fire, several authorities, like Fire Brigade, Police  and Revenue Authorities have mentioned cause of loss to the wheat crop as sparking from electricity wire and thus the record of tripping produced by Op does not have any effect on the case of the complainant. Thus, we are of the view that the fire took place on 11.04.2010 in the standing wheat crop of the complainant occurred due to sparking in  the electricity wires. The case laws submitted by complainant cited supra are relevant to the facts of the present case and thus are fully applicable in the present case.  Thus the Ops are negligent & deficient in providing proper services to the complainants. 

                        Since both the above said questions have been decided in favour of complainant, so  now we are coming on the point of quantum of compensation to be granted to the complainant. To prove this factum, complainant has placed on record copy of the report of Halqa Patwari as Annexures C-9 & C-10 endorsed by Halqua Kanungo. As per the report, complainant has sown  the wheat crop in land measuring 69K-10M owned by the complainants as well as 11K-14M which was taken by complainant on lease base. The Patwari has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.25,000/- per acre which comes to Rs.2,20,000/- and Rs.37,500/- respectively. In this regard, complainant has also submitted his affidavit to corroborate his version.  The OPs have not lead any evidence to rebut the report of the  revenue authorities regarding loss of the crops. As such, we have no option except to believe the report of the Halqa Patwari.  In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view  that crops of complainant has been smashed in the fire occurred due to electricity sparking.  Hence, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Accordingly, the complaint is allowed with cost alongwith compensation of Rs.2,57,500/- as assessed by  Revenue Authorities and Ops are directed to comply with the following directions from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. To pay a sum of Rs.2,57,500/- to the complainants within sixty days after receiving copy  of the order, failing which,  the OPs will pay the interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as costs of proceedings.

 

                             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. 

                                                                                                        Sd/-

ANNOUNCED:30.12.2016.                                                     (D.N. ARORA)

                                 PRESIDENT    

 

                                                                                               Sd/-

        (PUSHPENDER KUMAR)

                                                                                                            MEMBER