Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/913/2012

Sushil Kumar s/o sh.Prem Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVNL, - Opp.Party(s)

S.P.Banchal

17 Mar 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR AT JAGADHRI.

                                                                                    Complaint No. 913 of 2012.

                                                                                    Date of institution: 28.08.2012.

                                                                                    Date of decision: 17.03.2017.

Sushil Kumar aged about 38 years son of Shri Prem Chand, resident of Rattangarh, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar.                                                                                    

                                                                                                                       …Complainant.

                                    Versus

1. U.H.B.V.N. Shakti Bhawan, Sector-6, Panchkula through its Chairman.
2. Assistnat Executive Officer/ S.D.O. (O.P), Division, U.H.B.V.N. Radaur, District Yamuna Nagar.
3. Executive Engineer, U.H.B.V.N. Ltd. Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar.

 

                                                                                                           ... Respondents.

BEFORE:       SH. ASHOK KUMAR GARG, PRESIDENT.

                        SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

 

Present: Sh. S.P.Banchal, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

              Sh. J.S. Deswal, Advocate, counsel for respondents.

 

ORDER (ASHOK KUMAR GARG PRESIDENT)

 

1.                     Complainant  Sushil Kumar has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection 1986 praying therein that the respondents (hereinafter referred as OPs) be directed to pay a sum of Rs. 85,000/- on account of loss of wheat crop, physical harassment, mental agony etc. suffered by him due to fire caused by sparking of electricity wires.  

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant had taken two acres of land on lease from one Shri Lala Vidya Sagar and the abovesaid land is situated at village Radaur. The complainant had sown wheat crop in the abovesaid two acres of land. The electric wires have been passing through the abovesaid land and in this regard the complainant so many times requested the OPs to tight the wire but of no use. On 17.04.2012 at about 3.30 P.M., the wires which were passing through the land of the complainant, collided with each other and came under fire and due to that reason the two acres of wheat crop of complainant was burnt and complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 85,000/- and in this regard the complainant also moved an application to S.D.O. UHBVNL on the same day i.e. on 18.04.2012 and thereafter lodged a DDR No. 8(A) dated 18.04.2012 with the police and not only this, the complainant also moved an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar on 19.04.2012 but of no use. 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 the complainant had no connection in his name and as such he has no right to file the present complaint and on merit it has been admitted to the extent that wires may have been passing  over the fields which have allegedly been taken by the complainant on lease but it is wrong to allege that the wires are at the height of 6 feet and it is also wrong to allege that the complainant ever requested to that effect as no wire is hanging at the height of 6 feet so this allegation of the complainant is wrong and hence denied. There was no collusion of the wire as alleged nor any damage was caused by the wire as alleged, as far as the question of moving an application is concerned that is a matter of record and it is also possible that the complainant in order to create a false evidence might have lodged a DDR No. 8(A) dated 18.04.2012 and may have moved the application to the Deputy Commissioner also but had there been any damaged, the police might have taken the action but as there was no damage so the action was not taken. Hence, the OPs are not liable to pay any kind of compensation to the complainant and 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 dated19.04.2012 made to Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure C-1, Photo copy of application dated 18.04.2012 made to S.D.O., UHBVNL, Radaur, Yamuna Nagar as Annexure C-2, Photo copy of DDR No. 8(A) dated 18.04.2012 as Annexure C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Raj Kumar, J.E.F, UHBVNL Radaur as Annexure RA and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.  

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

7.                     The only plea of complainant is that due to sparking/ electrocution from the loose wires his two acres wheat crop caught fire and inspite of best efforts made by him, he failed to save the wheat crop and the same was burnt at the spot. Regarding this accident, a DDR No. 8-A dated 18.04.2012 (Annexure C-3) was lodged in the P.S. Radaur and in this regard he made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar and S.D.O. UHBVNL, Radaur but they did not do anything and lastly prayed for acceptance of the complaint.

8.                     On the other hand, Learned counsel for the OPs argued that complainant has totally failed to prove his case and in the absence of cogent evident, it cannot be presumed that wheat crop of the complainant caught fire due to sparking of the loose wires. No complaint either before or after was lodged with the OPs that wire was loose at the spot. Even, the complainant has never lodged his claim/complaint with the office of OPs department. The alleged DDR bearing No.8A (Annexure C-3) has been lodged by the complainant regarding the incident on his own statement. Learned counsel for the Ops draw our attention towards the affidavit of Raj Kumar J.E. (Annexure RA) wherein it has been mentioned that no report regarding loose wire or any loss due to sparking was found lodged in the month of April, 2012 regarding the hanging of loose wire over the fields allegedly taken on lease by the complainant and lastly prayed for dismissal of complaint.

9.                     After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that complainant has miserably failed to prove that in what manner he falls under the definition of consumer of the Ops as neither he has not disclosed that whether he was having any electricity connection in his name nor any electricity bill has been placed on file. Further, the complainant has also failed to prove that there was any deficiency in service on the part of OPs as no copy of complaint alleged to has been lodged with the OPs before or after this incident has been placed on record. Even the complainant has not filed any affidavit of any neighbourer or any respectable person of the village or any revenue authority to prove the loss suffered by him due to sparking. The complainant has only filed copy of DDR Annexure C-1 which was recorded on the statement of complainant himself. Even the complainant has not filed any copy of jamabandi, Khasra Girdawari to prove the ownership of any land.

10.                   In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that complainant has failed to prove his case and any deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Moreover, the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer as he has miserably failed to prove himself as consumer. So, without any documentary evidence, we have no option except to dismiss the complaint. As such, the present complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Court to redress his grievances, if so advised. 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: 17.03.2017.

 

                                                                                               (ASHOK KUMAR GARG)

                                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

                                                                                               (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                                MEMBER