Haryana

Karnal

356/2013

Amrik Singh S/o Darshan Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Uttar Haryana Bijle Vitran Nigam Limited., Uttar Haryana Bijali Vitran Nigam ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Bhaskar Bhalla

30 Jul 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                          Complaint No.356 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt. 16.08.2013

                                                               Date of decision: 26.08.2015

 

Amrik Singh  son of Darshan Singh resident of Dera Guru Nanakpura Pingli  Road, Karnal.                                                          

                                                                   ……….Complainant.

                             Versus

1.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, Sub Division Ram Nagar, Karnal.

2.Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Shakti Bhawan, Sector 6, Panchkula through its Secretary.

                                                           ……… Opposite Parties.

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer

                   Protection Act.

 

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Smt. Shashi Sharma ………Member.

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…… Member.  

         

 Present:         Sh.Bhaskar Bhalla Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.R.K.Sharma  Advocate for the Ops.

ORDER:

 

                        This complaint  has been filed u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the averments that on 3.8.2013 at about 11:15AM, complainant alongwith his two buffaloes was going to his fields  from his Dera. When he reached near Singla Factory turn,  the buffaloes touched the stay wire of the electric pole installed near the factory.  Electricity was running through the stay wire and on account of  electric current both the buffaloes died at the spot due to electrocution. The complainant reported the accident to the police present near  Pingli Chowk, Karnal and DDE No.21 dated 3.8.2013 was entered in that regard. The police officials got the  dead bodies of the buffaloes photographed. Post mortem  was also got done from the Government Veterinary Hospital,  Manjura, District Karnal,   on the same day. Thereafter the complainant moved an application to the SDO, UHBVNL Sub Division, Ram Nagar for compensation for death of his buffaloes, but he refused to entertain the application.  The buffaloes had died due to deficiency/negligence in service on the part of the Opposite Party ( in short  OP), therefore, the complainant is entitled to  get compensation,  but the Ops have refused to accede to his request.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops, who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainant.  Objections have been raised that the complainant has no loucs standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complaint is not maintainable because the complainant is not consumer of the Ops; that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that the present complaint is an abuse of the process of law; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint in view Section 145 of the Electricity Act and  that the complaint is bad for want of notice u/s 161 of the Electricity Act.

 

                   On merits, it has been denied that electric current was running through the stay wire of the pole erected near the Singla Factory. It has also been denied that two buffaloes of the complainant  died due to electrocution on account of electric current in the stay wire, which was touched by the buffaloes. It has been submitted that Ops had been properly maintaining the electric line and the stay wire and there was no negligence on their part. The buffaloes of the complainant might have died due to some other reason, but he has filed the present complaint in order to grab money from Ops. The DDR was also got entered falsely in order to black mail the Ops. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant he has filed affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C10.

 

4.                On the other hand in evidence of the Ops, affidavit of Sh.D.S.Verma, SDO (Operation) has been filed as Ex.O1.

 

5.                We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the case file very carefully.

 

6.                As per allegations of the complainant his two buffaloes had died due to electrocution as the same touched the stay wire of electric pole installed near Singla Factory, because   electric current was running  through that stay wire. The photographs Ex.C5 to Ex.C8 show that two buffaloes were lying dead near the electric pole. One buffalo was lying just near the stay wire of the pole. The post mortem reports Ex.C3 and Ex.C4 are sufficient to establish that buffaloes had  died due to electrocution. The complainant has also reported the matter to the police and the copy of that report alongwith police report is Ex.C2. 

 

7.                 The Learned counsel for the OP has put a  great thrust upon the contention that as per the case of the complainant his two buffaloes had come into contact with the stay wire attached with the electric pole installed near Singla Factory and the same died, due to electrocution but the complainant is not consumer of the Ops, therefore, his complaint is not maintainable before this Forum

 

8.                 The complainant has produced copy of the electricity bill for the  period of 10.3.2013 to 10.5.2013 showing that he is consumer of the OPs in respect of the said connection. The buffaloes of the complainant died due to electrocution on account of

 coming into contact with  the stay wire of the electric pole installed by the OPs. Thus, the matter into controversy boils down into a narrow compass and the main question which has arisen for consideration is whether the complainant can be considered as a consumer for the purpose of  filing the present complaint claiming compensation in respect of death of his two buffaloes due to electrocution.

 

9.         In C.G.M., P &O, NPDCL & Ors. Versus Kopppu Duddarajam and another IV(2008) CPJ, 139, the deceased was sitting in front of the Panchayat office and live wire fell on him as a result of which he died due to electrocution.  Under those circumstances, it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that  villagers  pay taxes to village Panchayat and power consumption charges to electricity company, therefore, they are consumers and being beneficiaries  are entitled to get compensation.   In  Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division  & Ors. Vs. Budhdhan IV(2008) CPJ 278(NC) the live wire fell over the  wife of the complainant causing her death.  The Electricity Distribution  Division  raised the plea that  someone  threw green leaves of sugarcane on the electricity wire and made the electric line shot by  breaking the electric wire and there was no negligence on the part of the Electricity Department. Under those circumstances, it was held  by  the Hon’ble National Commission  that there was deficiency in services and negligence on the part of the Electricity Department because such event could not take place unless the wire was  being placed very low and in reach of the people while passing by.  In  Parmila Devi and others Vs.Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and another, IV(2008) CPJ 332, the deceased came into contact with the stay wire, which was not insulted properly and deceased died due to shock.  Under those circumstances, it was held by  Hon’ble Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, that  proper precaution to insulate stay wire  was not taken  and there was negligence on the part of the Ops, therefore, compensation and cost were awarded.

 

10.               In view of the proposition of law laid down in the afore discussed authorities, claim of the complainant regarding death of his two buffaloes which died as a result of electrocution   on account of coming into contact with stay wire of the electric pole, which was not  properly  insulated by the Ops cannot be denied, because there   was clear negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Ops in not insulating the stay wire properly. According to the Post Mortem Reports Ex.C3 and Ex.C4,  age of one buffalo was approximately  six and a half years and that of the other approximately seven and a half years. Approximate market price of one of the buffalo was Rs.75,000/- and that of other Rs.65000/-. Observations of the Veterinary Officer, regarding market price of the buffaloes cannot be ignored in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. As there was deficiency in services/negligence on the part of the Ops, the complainant is entitled to get compensation in respect of death of his two buffaloes which died due to electrocution.

 

11.               As a result of the foregoing  discussion, we accept the present complaint and direct the Ops to make the payment of Rs.1,35,000/- ( i.e. cost of two buffaloes Rs.75000+ Rs.65000/-) to the complainant.   The complainant shall also be entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the  mental agony and harassment suffered him and the litigation expenses. The Ops shall make the compliance of this order within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.  The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:26.08.2015                                                                              

                                               

                                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

              

 

 (Anil Sharma)          (Smt.Shashi Sharma)        

     Member.            Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:         Sh.Bhaskar Bhalla Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.R.K.Sharma  Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Arguments  partly heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 26.8.2015.

Announced
dated:20.08.2015                                                                              

                                                

                                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

              

 

 (Anil Sharma)          (Smt.Shashi Sharma)        

     Member.            Member.

 

Present:         Sh.Bhaskar Bhalla Advocate for the complainant.

                     Sh.R.K.Sharma  Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Remaining arguments heard. Vide our separate order of the even date, the present complaint has  been accepted. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced
dated:20.08.2015                                                                              

                                               

                                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

              

 

 (Anil Sharma)          (Smt.Shashi Sharma)        

     Member.            Member.