Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/140/2013

Karnail Singh s/o Sh.Ram Sawroop, - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL, - Opp.Party(s)

Rajnish Kaushik

05 Dec 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                                                         Complaint No. 140  of  2013.

                                                                                         Date of institution: 20.02.2013.

                                                                                         Date of decision: 05.12.2016.

Karnail Singh aged about 45 years son of Shri Ram Swroop, Caste Harijan, r/o Village Mandebri, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                    …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Operation, Sub Division No.1, Radaur Road, Yamuna Nagar through its S.D.O.
2. X.E.N. , U.H.B.V.N.Ltd. Sub Division No.1, Radaur Road, Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. U.H.B.V.N.Ltd. Sector-6, Panchkula through its Managing Director.                                                                                                                                                                                                                 

                                                                                                                                   … Respondents.

                         

BEFORE:         SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT

                          SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. Rajnish Kaushik, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

               Sh. R.K.Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

ORDER

 

1.                      Complainant Karnail Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 praying therein that respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of loss of his business, mental agony and physically harassment.    

2.                 Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant was running a small diary as an occupation milkmaid with three buffalos in milk and two calf. It has been further alleged that an electric pole was installed permanently near the house of complainant. The electric wires attached with the said pole were very loose and even the said wires were lived and electricity was running through the aforesaid wires and electricity sparking was generated from time to time. The complainant complaint to the OPs to look into the matter but they did not pay any heed. On 22.05.2012 at about 3.00 a.m. the electric wires which were attached with pole sparked and burst into flames consequently ignited the shed/shelter of the animals of complainant as a result of which shed/shelter was totally burnt out. Thereafter, the complainant and their family members came out of the house and many persons of locality also gathered at the spot and tried to extinguish fire but not succeeded in their mission as the flame had already incinerated the she/shelter. The animals who were there, also burnt in miserable condition and the animals are still under treatment. Thereafter, the complainant lodged an FIR bearing No. 13(A) dated 22.05.2012 in the police station Farakpur. Due to the said accident, the animals were not in a condition to give the milk and complainant has lost his business and expended lot of money for their treatment. The said accident occurred due to the negligence and carelessness and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and they are liable to pay compensation. Hence, this complaint.

3                  Upon notice, Ops appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs; the complainant has got no locus standi or cause of action to file and maintain the present complaint against the OPs; the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum, hence the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. The true facts are that no damage of any kind has been done to the complainant on the part of OPs as alleged in the complaint. Moreover, there is no looseness in the electric wires, in the said area and no electric wire find in broken state at the spot whereas no prior and later complaint has been registered in the complaint register of the OPs either by the complainant or by any other inhabitants of the locality. If the damages has been done on the part of OPs, then instead of filing the present complaint, the complainant should approach to the S.E. of OPs department at Yamuna Nagar and on merit controverted the plea taken in the complaint and reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections. 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 application made to Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar for compensation as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of DDR No. 13(A) dated 22.05.2012 as Annexure C-2, Photo copy Medical Report of Animals as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of ration card as Annexure C-4, Photographs of buffalo, calf and shed as Annexure C-5 to C-8 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5                  On the other hand, counsel for the Ops tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. R.K.Nirmal, SDO (OP) UHBVNL, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure RW/A and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

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.

7.                 Learned counsel for the complainant argued at length that buffalo, calf and shed of the complainant burnt due to sparking in the electricity wire which was installed on the pole by the Ops and draw out attention towards the Medical Report, DDR as well as Photographs Annexure C-2, C-3 and C-5 to C-8 wherein the reason of fire has been shown as sparking in the electric wire. Lastly, prayed for acceptance of complaint.  

8.                  On the other hand, counsel for the Ops hotly argued that there exists no relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties as no electricity bill has been placed on file to prove that complainant was consumer of the Ops. Further learned counsel for the Ops argued that there was no looseness in the electric wires in the said area and no electric wire find in broken state at the spot whereas no prior and later complaint has been registered in the complaint register of the OPs. Learned counsel for the Ops further argued that voluminous evidence is required to prove that there was any negligence on the part of the Ops but in the present complaint, the complainant has totally failed to prove that fire took place due to sparking in the electric wires due to the negligence of the Ops. In the absence of any negligence, it cannot be held that there was any deficiency in service on the part of Ops and complainant is entitled to get any compensation. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                   After hearing both the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops as the complainant has totally failed to prove that the fire took place due to the negligence on the part of the Ops. No report from any technical expert person has been placed on file to prove that the electric wires were loose due to which the fire took place at the shed of complainant. Moreover, the complainant has not placed on file any documentary evidence that he was having any electricity connection in his name at the time of alleged occurrence and hired the services of the Ops against consideration. It is not disputed that the fire took place on 22.05.2012 which is evident from the copy of DDR Annexure C-2 as well as Photographs Annexure C-5 to C-8 but mere filing of copy of the DDR as well as photographs it cannot be said that there was any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  To prove these facts elaborate evidence is required and to decide such type of cases, Civil Court is the best plate form. Without commenting on the merit of the case, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, complainant is at liberty to file his complaint before the competent court of law having jurisdiction if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as Luxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute (1995)III SCC page 583. A copy 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 in open court. 05.12.2016.

 

                                                                                                ( ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                           PRESIDENT

 

 

 

                                                                                          (S.C.SHARMA)

                                                                                           MEMBER