Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/290/2011

Rishi Pal s/o Sh.Punna - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL, - Opp.Party(s)

S.S.Kamboj

22 Jun 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                       Complaint No. 290 of 2011.

                                                                                       Date of institution: 04.04.2011

                                                                                       Date of decision: 22.06.2016

Rishi Pal aged about 59 years son of Shri Punna, resident of Village Kanjnu, Sub Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                                    …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Uttri Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited Sector 6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula, through its Chairman/M.D.
2. Xen, (OP) Division, UHBVNL, Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. S.D.O. (OP), UHBVNL Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.

                                                                                                                                   …Respondents.

Before:             SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG…………….. PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA………………………….MEMBER.

 

Present:  Sh. S.S.Kamboj, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               Sh. M.R.Aneja, Advocate, counsel for respondents. 

              

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainants have filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986, praying therein that respondents ( hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of damages to the crop due to fire and also to pay compensation as well as litigation expenses. 

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainants, are that complainant is owner in possession of land measuring 32 Kanals 08 Marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Bakana, Sub Tehsil Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar. The complainant has sown wheat crop in his land measuring 32 Kanal 08 marlas comprised in Khewat No.8//8, Khatauni No.9 bearing Khasra No. 75//19, 20, 23,77//3. On 16.04.2010 at about 2.00 P.M. the complainants went to his field and when he reach near his field, the electric wires started striking against each other and due to which sparking the wheat crops of the complainant caught fire and due to the blowing of high speed wind the fire spread in the wheat crop of the complainant and 32 kanals 08 Marlas land of wheat crop of the complainant totally burnt. Intimation in this regard was given to the official of the OP No.1 on the same day. This accident took place due to sole negligence of the OPs because the wires passing over the fields of the complainant were very loose and the complainant had been making several complaints to the officials of the OPs as well as in writing to tight the wires so that the loose wire may not struck against each other and will not cause damage by giving sparking but the officials of the OPs did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. The complainant has made a report to the police of P.S. Radaur and DDR No. 13 dated 16.04.2010 was lodged in P.S.Radaur. The complainant has also reported to the Naib Tehsildar, Radaur, with the request to get the complainant compensated and the Naib Tehsildar, Radaur and Halka Patwari visited the spot and inspect the field of complainant and photographs were also taken in this regard. Thereafter, the complainant several times visited to the office of OPs and requested to pay compensation to the complainant but the OPs did not bother to listen to the complainant. In this way, the OPs are deficient and negligent in providing proper services to the complainant and is indulging in unfair trade practice. Hence, this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is legally not maintainable as there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs. It has been further submitted that the electric wires passing over the land of complainant since long back and these wires are being maintained by the OPs very properly. There was no sparking from the said wire and nor the complainant suffered any loss due to any sparking. Moreover, no complaint of any kind whatsoever made by the complainant regarding the allegedly loose nature of the wires passing over the fields of complainant. As per record maintained by the OPs, no complaint was made by the complainant regarding the alleged sparking in the wires. It has been further submitted that the complainant alleged that the electric wires started striking against each other due to which sparking took place on 16.04.2010 at about 2.00 P.M. and caught fire. As a matter of fact there was no electric supply at 2.00 P.M. on 16.04.2010. Therefore, the question of any alleged sparking does not arise at all. Copy of log sheet maintained at 66 KV Sub Station Radaur from where the supply to the feeder on which the connection of the complainant existed attached herewith for the kind perusal of this Forum and as such complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable; no locus standi or any cause of action against the OPs; complaint filed by the complainant is abuse of process in the eyes of law; complainant has not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit reiterated the stand taken in the preliminary objections and lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                     To prove the case, counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Rishi Pal as Annexure CW/A and documents such as Photograph of field of complainant as Annexure C-1, photo copy of DDR No.  13 dated 16.04.2010 as Annexure C-2, News Paper cutting as Annexure C-3 and C-4, Photo copy of Intkal as Annexure C-5, Photo copy of Jamabandi for the year 2004-05 as Annexure C-6, Photo copy of letter dated 9.10.2013 alongwith RTI report as Annexure C-7 to C-9 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Balwan Singh, SDO, Operation Sub Division, UHBVN Ltd. Radaur as Annexure RW/A, Affidavit of Sandeep Kumar S/o Rishi Pal as Annexure RW/B and documents such as Photo copy of register as Annexure R-1, Photo copy of Log Book as Annexure R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.  

6.                     We have heard the counsels of both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on the file carefully and minutely.

7.                     Learned counsel for the complainant hotly argued at length that wheat crop of the complainant sown in 32 Kanals 08 Marlas was burnt which is evident from the copy of DDR Annexure C-2, Copy of Right to Information Annexure C-7 to C-9  and News Paper cutting as Annexure C-3 and C-4. He further draw our attention towards the Intkal (Annexure C-5) from where it is evident that Rishi Pal complainant was having agriculture land alongwith other co-sharers at village Bakana. Lastly referred the case law titled as Assistant Executive Engineer Sub Division No.11 Karnataka State Electricity Board Versus Sri Neelakanta Goiuda Siddanagouda Patil, 2002(2) CPR page 61(NC)  wherein it has been held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986- section 12 and 17- Crop of sugarcane, coconut and Chikku was burnt because of sparking from electric wire passing over the field of complainant- Wires were providing electricity to pump set of complainant for irrigation- Board had failed to take steps to place wires properly which were hanging loose due to distance- District Forum on basis of material awarded compensation. Appeal dismissed by State Commission- Revision- No error in impugned judgment to interfere in revisional jurisdiction.

8.                     On the other hand, counsel for the Ops argued at length that the complaint of the complainant is totally false and not maintainable as the complainant has totally failed to produce any cogent evidence that wheat crop caught fire due to the loose electric wires. Learned counsel for the OPs further argued that as per version of the complainant the fire took place at 2.00 P.M. on 16.04.2010 whereas as a matter of fact there was no electric supply at 2.00 P.M on 16.04.2010 and draw our attention towards the log sheet maintained at 66 KV Sub Station Radaur from where the supply to the feeder on which the connection of the complainant existed.  Learned counsel for the Ops referred the case law titled as Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Sher Singh, 1995(2) CLT page 391(N.C) in which it has been held that merely because a general electric supply line which was not the line supplying the electricity energy to the complainant consumer happened to be defective and on account of the said defect some accident happened on a public road either to an animal or even a person, it cannot be said that there was deficiency in rendering service to the said consumer, so, as to attract liability for payment of compensation under Consumer Protection Act and also further referred the case law HSEB Vs Ganga Devi 1996(3) CPJ Page 182 and 1997 (1) CPC page 237 National Commission wherein it has been held that complainant claimed compensation against HSEB for death of his cow due to electrocution. District Forum accepted the complaint of the complainant. Appeal dismissed being delay. Delay of four (4) days condoned by the National Commission. The order of District Forum set aside by ordering that it is not a consumer dispute.

9.                     The only question is whether the complainant fall under the definition of consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act 1986 amended up to date and there was any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of OPs and further whether the fire took place due to sparking of the electricity wire and complainant has suffered loss of 32 kanals 08 Marlas wheat crop or not? Before considering on merit of the case, it is necessary to go through the definition of consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 which is reproduced as under:

“Consumer” means any person who;

1. Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such gods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2. [Hires or avails of ]any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [ hires or avails of ] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person[but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]

[ Explanation:- For the purposes of this clause, “ commercial purpose’ does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood by means of self employment;]

10.                   From the perusal of above noted definition we are of the considered view that complainant does not fall under the definition of Consumer as the complainant has totally failed to file any cogent evidence to prove that the alleged fire took place due to the sparking of the electricity wires. Even the complainant has not mentioned in his complaint that prior to file the present complaint they ever lodged any complaint with the concerned electricity department. No doubt wheat crop of the complainant was burnt but it is a matter which can be decided by taking elaborate evidence, in respect of that whether there was any negligence or not on the part of Ops and fire took place due to the sparking of electricity wire. Further the complainant has also not filed any documentary evidence to prove that to what extent the complainant has suffered financial loss. To decide these questions regarding taking place of fire, actual financial loss, elaborate evidence is required and such type of matter can only be tried and decided by the Civil Court on the regular proceedings and not by the Consumer Forum in summary nature. Further, the civil court have jurisdiction to decide the question that to what extent the complainant was owner in possession of the agriculture land. It is not the case of the complainant that he ever lodged the claim with the OPs department and the OPs department has wrongly and illegally repudiated or rejected the claim of the complainant. The complainant has filed straightway this complaint before this Forum even without serving any legal notice or lodging any complaint with the OPs Department or any Higher Authority of the Ops Department. The arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainant  is not tenable as the complainant has totally failed to prove his case by producing cogent evidence and further the law cited by the complainant is not disputed but not applicable to the facts of the present case.  

11.                   After going through the above noted facts and views expressed in the above noted citations, we are of the considered view that the present complaint is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to take other legal remedy from the civil court, if so advised. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted. 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: 22.06.2016.

 

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                    PRESIDENT,

 

 

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.