Haryana

Kurukshetra

155/2017

Dharam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL - Opp.Party(s)

Arvind Bhardwaj

13 Jun 2019

ORDER

BEFORE THE  DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

 

Consumer Complaint no. 155 of 2017.

Date of instt. 02.08.2017. 

                                                                        Date of Decision: 13.06.2019.

 

Dharam Singh age about 53 years son of Shri Hari Chand, resident of village Sandhola, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra. 

                                                                ……….Complainant.      

                        Versus

 

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Managing Director, Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula.

 

2. Executive Engineer, Operation Division, U.H.B.V.N. Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.

 

..………Opposite parties.

 

       Complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act.            

 

Before       Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.    

                Ms. Neelam, Member. 

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member                                          

Present:     Sh. Arvind Bhardwaj, Advocate for complainant.            

Sh. Sandeep Tiwana, Advocate for opposite parties.

           

ORDER

                                                                         

                    This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Dharam Singh against Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another, the opposite parties.

2.             It is stated in the complaint that complainant took 10 acres of agriculture land on lease in village Sarsa, Tehsil Pehowa, District Kurukshetra from one Shri Ramphal son of Sh. Hukam Singh and sown the crop of sugarcane. It is alleged that on 30.3.2017, when the complainant was harvesting the above said land and he had almost harvested the crop of sugarcane but unfortunately when 3½ acres of sugarcane crop was left to be harvested, the electric wires which was passing over the above said land through an electric pole standing near the room constructed in the fields broken due to shirt circuit and fell down in the fields of the complainant where the remaining 3½ acres of sugarcane was left and due to which all the remaining crop of sugarcane was badly burnt/ damaged. That the complainant immediately made a call to the emergency fire brigade about the incident but when the fire brigade reached at the spot, the aforesaid crop of sugarcane was totally burnt. The fire brigade tried to save the crop but all in vain. The driver of the fire brigade vehicle No.HR65A-7232 namely Sanjeev Kumar gave a fire report No.2/FBP dated 5.4.2017 in this respect. It is further alleged that complainant moved an application on 31.3.2017 to the concerned police station for lodging the DDR of the aforesaid incident and the police of Police Station Pehowa after investigation lodged DDR No.25 on 6.4.2017. The complainant also moved applications to other higher authorities and the Sub Division Agriculture Officer, Pehowa after inspection gave his inspection report, according to which the incident happened due to the electric short circuit of wires passing over the fields of complainant and about 70 to 75% of crop of sugarcane was badly burnt. It is further alleged that complainant also approached the ops several times and requested to take necessary action and to pay compensation but the ops did not pay any heed to the genuine requests of the complainant. Hence, this complaint for a direction to the ops to pay a sum of Rs.five lacs as compensation alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum for trhe loss/ damage and also to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental torture, harassment and further to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

3.             On notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written statement taking certain preliminary objections regarding maintainability, cause of action, locus standi, estoppal and jurisdiction etc. It is submitted that complainant has not approached to this Forum with clean hands and has concealed the true and material facts. The true and material facts of the case are that as per the version of complainant himself, his sugarcane crop was burnt on 30.3.2017 and DDR No.25 was registered on 6.4.2017 i.e. after delay of about seven days. The complainant has never given any intimation to the answering ops regarding the burning of his sugarcane crops and after seven days delay, the complainant in collusion with his other yes mans and in collusion with the police has falsely reported the matter and succeeded to get registered the alleged DDR. Moreover, there is no explanation by the complainant in his complaint regarding the said delay. The ops have divested from their vested right to inquire into the matter, so the ops are not at fault. Moreover, the sugarcane was not burnt due to short circuit because there is no electricity poles in the field of complainant nor any wire of electricity is passing through the field of complainant as alleged rather the same was burnt due to some other reason which complainant very well knows but concealing the fact intentionally and willfully. It is further submitted that no detail of the land in which alleged sugarcane was standing, has been given by the complainant nor any documents i.e. jamabandi, khasra girdawari and lease deed etc. has been annexed. With these averments, dismissal of complaint prayed for.

4.             The complainant tendered his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C16, affidavit of Ramphal Ex.C17 and copy of jamabandi Ex.C18. On the other hand, ops did not produce any evidence despite availing several opportunities and the evidence of ops was closed by order.

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

6.             Learned counsel for the complainant has contended that complainant sowed sugarcane crop after taking 10 acres of agriculture land on lease from Ramphal son of Hukam Singh and on 30.3.2017 short circuit took place in the wires passing over the above said land and sugarcane crop of three and half acres was badly burnt in the incident. The matter was reported to the concerned authorities who inspected the fields of complainant and reported the damage to the crop due to short circuit in the wires and as such the complainant is entitled for compensation from the ops. He has further contended that complainant has duly proved his case and prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

7.             On the other hand, learned counsel for ops has contended that there was no fault on the part of electricity board as the crop was not burnt due to short circuit in the wires but same was damaged due to some other reason. He has further contended that prior to this incident, there was no complaint of the complainant about breakage of wire or any electricity default and the complainant has also not given any intimation to the ops at the time of alleged incident or after the incident. He has further contended that there is no other independent witness of the alleged incident and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

8.             We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have perused the case file carefully.

9.             The complainant in order to prove his case has furnished his affidavit Ex.CW1/A in which he has reiterated all the averments made in the complaint. In support, he has also placed on file affidavit of Ramphal son of Sh. Hukam Singh Ex.C17 in which he has supported the case of the complainant regarding leasing out of their land to the complainant and regarding burning of sugarcane crop due to short circuit in the electric wires. From the copy of receipt of Municipal Committee, Pehowa Ex.C15, it is evident that MC, Pehowa charged an amount of Rs.1000/- from the complainant as fire brigade services charges. The complainant has also placed on file copy of fire report Ex.C11. The complainant has also placed on file copy of DDR dated 6.4.2017 Ex.C12 according to which sugarcane crop was burnt as fire took place due to short circuit in the electricity wire passing in the field. A committee comprising of Sub Divisional Agriculture Officer, Pehowa, Agriculture Development Officer (Sugarcane) Pehowa and Assistant Plant Protection Officer, Kurukshetra in their report attached with the letter addressed to Deputy Director, Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Department, Kurukshetra Ex.C13 reported that they inspected the fields of complainant on 7.4.2017 and found that 3.5 acres of sugarcane crop was burnt. In the said report, it is also mentioned that Agriculture Development Officer (Sugarcane) Pehowa told that on 31.3.2017 he himself inspected the field of farmer and found that 70 to 75% of sugarcane crop in 3.5 acres of land was burnt. In the report it is also mentioned that electricity wires were passing through H. Pole in the affected field. Further, the photographs Ex.C1 to Ex.C9 show that sugarcane crop was burnt. The ops have not led any evidence in support of their contentions and as such the evidence led by the complainant goes as unchallenged and unrebutted. So, it is proved on record that 70% to 75% sugarcane crop of the complainant in 3.5 acres of agricultural land was burnt due to short circuit in the electricity wires passing over the field of complainant.

10.            Now we assess the loss to the complainant. Though, the complainant has claimed loss of Rs.five lacs on account of damage to the crop in 3.5 acres of land but there is no authentic evidence in this regard on file and the same appears to be on higher side. Therefore, we asses the loss on our own wisdom.  It is commonly known that the average yield of sugarcane in one acre of land is 16 tons and 75% loss of yield comes to 12 tons in one acre. The total loss of sugarcane crop in 3.5 acres of land comes to 42 tons. It is also commonly known that price of the sugarcane crop in 2017 was Rs.4000/- per ton and the total amount of loss comes to Rs.1,68,000/- and the complainant is entitled to the said amount of Rs.1,68,000/- from the opposite parties on account of loss of crop besides compensation for harassment.     

11.            In view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,68,000/- to the complainant for loss of his crop within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual payment. We further direct the ops to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment including litigation expenses. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.  

Announced in open Forum:

Dt.: 13.6.2019 

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Neelam)           (Sunil Mohan Trikha)        

                Member                     Member