Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/793/2013

Rajesh Kumar S/o Basherhar nath - Complainant(s)

Versus

UHBVN Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

R.P.Saini

09 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA NAGAR

 

                                                                                       Complaint No. 793 of 2013.

                                                                                       Date of institution: 05.11.2013

                                                                                       Date of decision: 09.02.2016

Rajesh Kumar aged about 30 years son of Sh. Basheshar Nath, resident of village Taranwala, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, Distt. Yamuna Nagar. 

                                                                                                                                                …Complainant.

                                    Versus

 

1. Uttari Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited, through its Chairman, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula. 
2. The S.D.O. of City Sub Division, U.H.B.V.N.Bilaspur, Tehsil Chhachhrauli.                                                                                                                                                                                                                   …Respondents.

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

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

 

Present:  Sh. R.P.Saini, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

               Sh. Zile Singh, Advocate, counsel for OPs.

              

             

ORDER

 

1.                     Complainant Sh. Rajesh Kumar has 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 a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of loss of crops of wheat due to sparking of the electricity and further to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony, harassment etc.

2.                     Brief facts of the present complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that complainant is owner in possession of 8 Kanal in Khewat No. 5, Khatauni No. 6, Khasra No. 12/10/1/1 and 63/2/1, HB No. 27 village Taranwala, Tehsil Chhachhrauli, District Yamuna Nagar as per jamabandi for the year 2007-08. The complainant is also having a domestic connection on his house situated in village Taranwala bearing account No. JB-19/4512A-Y. A transformer was installed near village Taranwala from which a domestic connection and power connection has been released to Dera village Bhedthal near village Taranwala. The power line given to the Dera was passing upon the land stated above of the complainant and due to loose of wire of the Dera line a sparking has taken place on 09.04.2010 and wheat crop standing in one acre land i.e. 8 kanals burnt due to fire. A DDR No. 17 dated 09.04.2010 was lodged with the Police Station Sadar Jagadhri to this effect and intimation was also given to the concerned Halka Patwari vide which a Rapat Roznamcha was lodged. A claim was also lodged with the OPs for compensation for the loss of wheat of one acre i.e. Rs. 35,000/- on account of loss to the crop and Rs. 15000/- on account of expenses of fertilizers, labour, irrigation etc. but despite so many requests no compensation has been paid by the OPs. So, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence this complaint.

3.                     Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed its written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as complaint is not maintainable, not come to this Forum with clean hands and on merit it has been admitted that complainant has domestic connection bearing No. JB-19/4512A-Y. However, there is no relationship of consumer and supplier where the alleged accident has taken place. No complaint relating to sparking and burning of wheat crop has been received by the OPs from the complainant. It is also denied that electricity wires were loosed in the vicinity of Dera line. Hence, no question of sparking/struck fire due to loose electric wires as alleged does not arise. Lastly it has been mentioned that this complaint has been filed after thought to fetch handsome amount in the shape of compensation from the OPs. All the allegations leveled by the complainant are altogether false, baseless and manipulated one. The wheat crop might have burnt due to fire caught by any other reason and the same is clear cut negligence of the complainant himself. Hence, there is no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of Ops and prayed for dismissal of complaint without jurisdiction. 

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 Ration card as Annexure C-1, Original receipt of Municipal Committee as Annexure C-2, Electricity bill dated 22.12.2009 as Annexure C-3, Photo copy of Intkaal as Annexure C-4, Rough site plan as Annexure C-5, Copy of Rapat Roznamcha as Annexure C-6, Copy of jamabandi for the year 2007-08 as Annexure C-7, Carbon copy of DDR as Annexure C-8, Photographs as Annexure C-9 & C-10  and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.                     On the other hand, counsel for the OPs tendered into evidence affidavit of Pardeep Panwar, SDO, UHBVNL Bilaspur as Annexure RW/A 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. The counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments mentioned in the complaint and prayed for its acceptance whereas the counsel for OPs  reiterated the averments made in the reply and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

7.                     It is not disputed that complainant had a domestic connection bearing account No. JB19/4512A-Y which is evident from the electricity bill Annexure C-3 and is a resident of village Taranwala which is evident from photo copy of ration card and receipt of Municipal Council, Jagadhri Annexure C-1 and C-2 respectively. It is also not disputed that complainant Rajesh Kumar is having agriculture land at village Taranwala which is evident from Annexure C-4 Intkaal bearing No. 431 and Farad jamabandi for the year 2007-08. It is also not disputed that wheat crop of the complainant has not brunt which is evident from copy of DDR Annexure C-8 and Photographs Annexure C-9 and C-10 and further Rapat Roznamcha Annexure C-6.

8.                     The only question is whether the complainant falls 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 the complainant has suffered loss of one acre wheat crop. 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;]

9.                     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 documentary evidence by way of electricity bill that he ever had an electricity connection for his agriculture land from which the sparking took place. The complainant has only filed electricity bill pertaining to his domestic connection bearing No. JB-19/4512A-Y. Further the complainant has failed to file any copy of complaint made to the electricity department regarding loose wires. Even the complainant has not mentioned in his complaint that prior to the alleged accident he ever lodged any complaint with the concerned electricity department. No doubt wheat crop of the complainant of one acre is brunt but it is a matter which can be decided by taking elaborate evidence 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. It is also pertinent to mention here that only the Civil Court is competent to decide the question that to what extent the complainant is owner in possession of the agriculture land. The same view has been expressed in case titled as 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. Further same view has been held in case 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. 

10.                   After going through the above noted facts and views expressed in the above noted citations, we find no merit in the present complaint 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: 09.02.2016.

                                                                                    (ASHOK KUMAR GARG )

                                                                                     PRESIDENT,

 

                                                                                    (S.C.SHARMA )

                                                                                     MEMBER.