Haryana

Sonipat

CC/285/2015

Joginder Singh S/o Jagar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

M.S. Rana

22 Apr 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

               

 

                                Complaint No.285 of 2015

                                Instituted on:19.08.2015

                                Date of order:22.04.2016

 

Joginder Singh son of Jagat Singh, r/o village Rohat, distt. Sonepat.

 

                                                ...Complainant.

 

                        Versus

 

 

UHBVN Ltd. through its Superintending Engineer, Kabirpur, Sonepat.

                    

                                                      ...Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF       

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh.  MS Rana Adv. for complainant.

          Sh.  Baljit Khatri  Adv. for respondent.

 

 

BEFORE     NAGENDER SINGH, PRESIDENT.

          PRABHA WATI, MEMBER.

         

 

O R D E R

 

          Complainant has filed the present complaint against the  respondent alleging therein that on 18.8.2014 at about 1 pm, he went to his fields and came into the contact with a live broken wire passing over head electric line which was lying in standing unvisible and the complainant received multiple injuries on his person due to electric burns.  The complainant has become permanent disabled to the extent of 100%.  The complainant was admitted in emergency in Jaipur Golden Hospital Delhi and was discharged on 27.8.2014 and he has incurred Rs.287973/- on his treatment etc.  This accident has occurred due to the negligence of the respondent.  The complainant has requested the respondent to make the payment of Rs.287973/- which he has spent on his treatment, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. So, he has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.        In reply, the respondent has submitted that no such incident has taken place as alleged by the complainant.  The high tension line of the feeder was/is passing over the fields of many villagers including the field of the complainant and the same is maintained properly.  There was no chance of breaking the live conductor of high tension line passing over the field of the complainant.  If the conduct was broken on 18.8.2014, the supply of the area had been stopped being major fault, but no complaint was lodged to this effect in the complaint register maintained at the complaint centre of the village Rohat on 18.8.2014 or after wards by any consumer as the supply was running smoothly.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.        We have heard the arguments advanced by the ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and we have also gone through the entire relevant material available on the case file carefully & minutely.

4.        Ld. Counsel for the complainant has argued that due to the negligence and carelessness act on the part of the respondent, the complainant has suffered burn injuries on his person due to electrocution and for the treatment of the said burn injuries, the complainant was admitted in Jaipur Golden Hospital, Delhi and he has spent an amount of Rs.287973/- on his treatment etc.  The complainant has requested the respondents to make the payment of the said amount, but of no use and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          Ld counsel for the complainant has relied upon the case law titled as MC Mehta Vs. Union of India, wherein it has been held that Where an enterprise is engaged in a hazardous or inherently dangerous activity and harm is caused on any one on account of the accident in the operation of such activity, the enterprise is strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those who are affected by the accident, such liability is not subject to any of the exceptions to the principle of strict liability under the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher.

          Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that no such incident has taken place as alleged by the complainant.  The high tension line of the feeder was/is passing over the fields of many villagers including the field of the complainant and the same is maintained properly.  There was no chance of breaking the live conductor of high tension line passing over the field of the complainant.  If the conduct was broken on 18.8.2014, the supply of the area had been stopped being major fault, but no complaint was lodged to this effect in the complaint register maintained at the complaint centre of the village Rohat on 18.8.2014 or after wards by any consumer as the supply was running smoothly.  The complainant is not entitled for any relief and compensation as there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

4.        After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we find force in the present complaint as the complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

          The complainant has placed on record various bills Ex.P6 to P92.  Some bills are repeatedly demanded by the complainant in the present complaint.  There are three main bills when the complainant was admitted in Jaipur Golden Hospital on dated 18.8.2014 and was discharged on 27.8.2014.  The complainant has spent Rs.138139/- vide bill Ex.P6 and the complainant again deposited Rs.20559/- on 10.9.2014 vide bill Ex.P8.  Again the complainant made the payment of Rs.29163/-  to the said hospital vide bill Ex.P9.

          The perusal of these bills itself shows that in the bill Ex.P6 and P7, pharmacy charges received by Jaipur Golden Hospital were Rs.10742/- and the complainant again demanded this amount after exhibit of the bill Ex.P10 to P35.  So, the claim of the complainant against the bill P10 to P35 is not justified as these are included in the bill Ex.P6 and Ex.P7.

          The complainant has also placed on record remaining bills. We have perused the details mentioned at 16 by the complainant very carefully.  In this detail, the amount shown at serial no.3 and 4 i.e. Rs.1000/- and Rs.9559/- respectively, has been included in the bill Ex.P8.  Similarly, the amount shown at serial no.10, 11, 12 i.e. Rs.1000, Rs.25000/- and Rs.3165/- has also been included in the bill Ex.P8.

          So, the complainant cannot claim the above said amount repeatedly.  Thus, we are inclined to deduct Rs.39722/- (Rs.1000+9559+1000+25000+3163 = Rs.39722/-) from the total claimed amount of Rs.83,352/- which he has incurred on the purchase of medicines.  Thus, the complainant’s entitlement comes to Rs.43630/-.  Accordingly, we hereby direct the respondent to pay Rs.50,000/- as lumpsum amount towards the purchase of medicines by the complainant.  Further we hereby direct the respondent to make the payment of Rs.138139/- as per Ex.P6, Rs.20559/- as per Ex.P8 and Rs.29163/- as per Ex.P9.

          Since the complainant has become permanent disabled to the extent of 25% due to the negligence act and conduct of the respondent, we further direct the respondent to pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lac) as compensation for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

          The respondent is further directed to make the compliance of this order within a period of 60 days, failing which the above said amount of Rs.50,000/-, Rs.138139/-, Rs.20559/- and Rs.29163/- shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

          With these observations, findings and directions, the present complaint stands  allowed.

          Certified copy of this order be provided to both the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to the record-room.

 

 

(Prabha Wati)                   (Nagender Singh-President)

Member DCDRF                        DCDRF, Sonepat.

 

Announced:22.04.2016