Haryana

Karnal

289/2013

Rani Wd/o Vinod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

Sh. R.K. Chauhan

20 Nov 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                         

                                                          Complaint No. 289 of 2013

                                                          Date of instt.: 19.06.2013

                                                          Date of decision:26.11.2015

 

1.Rani wd/o Vinod Kumar

2.Partap s/o Sh.Vinod Kumar

3.Pardeep s/o Sh.Vinod Kumar

4.Kela w/o Rai Singh all residents of village and P.O.Beejna tehsil and district Karnal..

                                                                  ……..Complainants.

                   Vs.

 

1.SDO, Operation, UHBVN Ltd.Jundla tehsil and District Karnal.

2.Chairman, UHBVN Ltd.Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula.

                                                                  …..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.R.K.Chauhan Advocate for the complainants.

                   Sh.Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for the Ops.

ORDER:

 

                        This  complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, on the  averments that on 7.3.2013, Vinod Kumar, the  husband of complainant no.1, father of complainants no. 2 and 3 and son of complainant no.4, went to tubewell to irrigate  wheat crop. When he reached near the tubewell he came into contact with the stay wire, which was having electric current, due to which he  was electrocuted and as a result of that died at the spot. The Opposite Party ( in short OP)  No.1. was informed regarding the said accident and the matter was also reported to the police,  but due to three holidays, no one turned up. Therefore, body of  Vinod Kumar was removed and cremated. Death of Vinod Kumar took place due to deficiency in services and negligence on the part of Ops, as no  proper insulation was made for the installation  of the stay wire. Vinod Kumar was consumer of Ops at the time of his death. Complainants moved application to Ops for compensation, but no action was ever taken. The complainants claimed an amount of Rs.5,40,000/-  as compensation for death of Vinod Kumar due to negligence of Ops,  Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and harassment and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

 

2.       Notice of the complaint was given to the Ops who put into appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the complainants. Objections have been raised that complainants have got no loucs standi and cause of action to file the complaint; that complaint is not legally maintainable in the present form; that complainants are not consumers of Ops; that complainants have not approached this Forum with clean hands; that complaint is an abuse of the process of law  and that complaint is bad for want of  compliance of  provisions of Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003.    

 

                   On merits, it has been denied that complainants are user of the   Electricity Connection. It has been submitted that altogether false and baseless story has been put forwarded regarding the death of Vinod Kumar, who might have died due to some other reason and not on account of negligence on the part of Ops and for that reason neither any information was given to the Ops nor to the police  nor post mortem on the dead body of Vinod Kumar was got conducted. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

 

3.                In evidence of the complainant, affidavit  of complainant Rani Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C5 have been tendered.

 

4.                In evidence of Ops, affidavit of Sh.Sushil Kumar Boora, Sub Divisional Officer  has been tendered as Ex.OP1/A.

 

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

 

6.                As per the case of the complainants,  Vinod Kumar, the husband of complainant no.1, father of complainants no.2 and 3 and son of complainant no.4, had died due to electrocution on 7.3.2013, on account of coming into contact of stay wire near his tubewell. There is no dispute regarding the fact that Vinod Kumar was having electric connection for tubewell. Even otherwise, this fact stands  established from the copy of electricity Bill Ex.C1. However, the Ops have disputed the allegation of the complainants regarding death of Vinod Kumar due to electrocution.

 

7.                The complainants have produced the copy of report prepared by Rakesh Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) on 18.3.2013 Ex.C3 and the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, Beejna dated 12.4.2013 Ex.C4  apart from affidavit of complainant Rani Ex.CW1/A. No post mortem on the dead body of Vinod Kumar was got conducted to establish that he died due to electrocution. No first information report or Daily Diary Report regarding the death of Vinod Kumar due to electrocution was lodged in the Police Station on 7.3.2012 or the next day. Ex.C3, indicates that Rakesh Kumar made enquiry in the village  on 18.3.2013 on the application moved by complainant Rani Devi on 13.3.2013. Thus, it is emphatically clear that matter was reported to the police  for the first time by the complainant Rani on 12.3.2013 i.e. after 5 days of the death of Vinod Kumar.   Had he died  due to electrocution, it could not be expected from his family members to  remain silent for five days and  not to report the matter to the police. A man of ordinary prudence would certainly report the matter to the police immediately after the death of his relation  due to electrocution and family members would certainly  get conducted the post mortem on the dead body, particularly  in a case when such death takes place on account of negligence in maintaining the electric lines by the Bijli Nigam. Reporting the matter to the police after 5 days smacks that story of electrocution could have been made  afterthought for claiming compensation from the Nigam.  Even, Rakesh Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector did not visit the place of accident. No site plan regarding place of accident was prepared. He only made enquiry in the village.  Therefore, merely on the basis of such report of the police, it cannot be held that Vinod Kumar died due to electrocution on account of negligence of Bijli Nigam in maintaining the electric  lines. So far as resolution dated 12.4.2013 is concerned that was got passed on the basis of information given by the Sarpanch to the members of the Gram Panchayat. Passing  of such resolution by the Gram Panchayat after more than one month of death of Vinod Kumar is also not sufficient to  establish  the cause of death of Vinod Kumar, because such resolution can be passed by the Gram Panchayat in order to help a family, whose earning member has died due to some other reason.

 

8.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and as such the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly land the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced
dated:26.11.2015                                                                             

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-       Sh.R.K.Chauhan Advocate for the complainants.

                   Sh.Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for the Ops.

 

                   Arguments in part heard. For remaining arguments, the case is adjourned to 26.11.2015.

Announced:

dated:20.11.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

Present:-       Sh.R.K.Chauhan Advocate for the complainants.

                   Sh.Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for the Ops.

 

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

Announced:

dated:26.11.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Present:-       Sh.R.K.Chauhan Advocate for the complainants.

                   Sh.Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for the Ops

 

                   Arguments not ready. Adjournment sought. The case is now adjourned to 26.11.2015 for arguments.

 

Announced:

dated:20.11.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

        (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

                Member.

 

 

Present:-       Sh.R.K.Chauhan Advocate for the complainants.

                   Sh.Sanjeev Kamboj Advocate for the Ops

 

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

 

Announced:

dated:26.11.2015                                                                            

                                                                    (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                   President,

                                                         District Consumer Disputes

                                                          Redressal Forum, Karnal.

 (Anil Sharma)       (Smt.Shashi Sharma)    

   Member.                             Member.