CHAIRMAN, P.S.E.B. vs MOHINDER KAUR

ALL these appeals, namely, Appeal Nos. 1387 of 2000, 3 and 4 of 2001 are being decided together as they arise out of the same order and same question of law and facts are involved therein. Facts are being taken from appeal No. 1387 of 2000.

IT is an appeal against the order dated 18.10.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (hereinafter called the District Forum) vide which the District Forum has decided the following three complaints : (i) Complaint No. 303 of 2000, Smt. Mohinder Kaur v. Chairman, PSEB & Ors. (ii) Complaint No. 301 of 2000, Sh. Gurdip Singh & Anr. v. Chairman, PSEB and Ors. (iii) Complaint No. 302 of 2000, Sh. Surjit Singh v. Chairman, PSEB & Ors. It has been alleged by the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) that she was an agriculturist having 3 Horse Power tubewell electric connection A/c No. C3-442, installed in her field in the revenue estate of village Talwandi, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. This tubewell of hers was joint with one Gurdip Singh. She had been receiving electric supply to her tubewell connection from the Dhirta Singh Wala Transformer installed in the revenue estate of village Talwandi, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and, thus, she was availing services of the appellant-opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties) and was their consumer. It was further alleged in the complaint that on 12.4.1999, due to negligence of respondent No. 3- opposite party No. 3 (hereinafter called opposite party No. 3) i.e., SDO/Assistant Executive Engineer of PSEB, Sub-Division Tibbar, the standing wheat crop of the complainant in the land measuring 20 kanals area was destroyed by fire due to sparking of the aforesaid transformer and she had suffered a loss of Rs. 25,000/-. She gave information of this loss to opposite party No. 3 and also lodged DDR No. 26 dated 12.4.1999 at Police Station Dhariwal. After that the Chief Electrical Officer (sic. Chief Electrical Inspector), Patiala visited the spot and recorded her statement relating to this incident. Thereafter, opposite party No. 3, wrote memo dated 30.9.1999 to her and demanded from her the actual loss/estimate through the Revenue Department. She submitted this estimate of loss to opposite party No. 3 and after that she contacted the opposite parties and requested them to reimburse the loss. She also served a legal notice dated 15.5.2000 on them. But it elicited no response from them. Hence the complaint before the District Forum.

Opposite parties contested the complaint and pleaded that the complainant was not a consumer under them, so the complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was not maintainable. However, mercifully, it was not denied that the tubewell of the complainant bearing No. C3-442 was installed in her fields at Talwandi or that it was energized from the Dhirta Singh Wala Transformer installed in the revenue estate of village Talwandi. However, it was pleaded that no negligence could be attributed to the opposite parties in the fire incident. It was then pleaded in the reply that on 12.4.1999 there was heavy storm, but in any case, no fault on the part of the opposite parties could be attributed for the incident and the consequent loss to the wheat field of the complainant. It is not specifically denied in the reply that the fire was caused by a sparking in the aforesaid transformer installed by the opposite parties. The allegation of the complainant that her wheat crop worth Rs. 25,000/- was burnt in this fire was also not specifically denied.

IN complaint No. 301 of 11.7.2000 filed by Gurdip Singh and Mangal Singh complainants, it was stated that their wheat crop measuring 12 kanals was destroyed in the aforesaid fire incident and that they suffered a loss of Rs. 15,000/-. IN complaint No. 302 of 11.7.2000 filed by Shri Surjit Singh complainant, it was pleaded that his wheat crop measuring 24 kanals was destroyed in this fire incident and he suffered a loss of Rs. 30,000/-. These complaints were also contested by the opposite parties on the similar grounds as pleaded by them in Complaint No. 303 of 11.7.2000 filed by Smt. Mohinder Kaur stated above. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, the District Forum allowed the complaint. Hence this appeal.

WE have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and have gone through the record of the case with their assistance. Smt. Mohinder Kaur has tendered her affidavit Ex. C-1 in evidence in which she was affirmed her case on oath. Ex. C-2 is the copy of the DDR No. 26 dated 12.4.1999 lodged at Police Station Dhariwal, reporting the fire incident in question. Ex. C-3 is letter No. 818 dated 30.9.1999 from the Assistant Executive Engineer, PSEB, opposite party No. 3 addressed to the complainant requesting her to supply him the estimate of loss, prepared by the Revenue Department. Ex. C-4 is the application of the complainant addressed to Tehsildar, Gurdaspur. on the back of the application, the Patwari Halqa has made a report that the estimate of loss in Mohinder Kaur''s case was Rs. 18,000/-. This application was returned to the complainant by the Tehsildar with his endorsement made on the back of this application. Ex. C-5 is the letter dated 17.3.1999 from the Chief Agricultural Officer, Gurdaspur to opposite party No. 3 giving the per acre average yield of wheat, the expenses of harvesting, rate of Turi per acre, and the rate of wheat per quintal. Similar evidence has been tendered in the connected two complaints by the respective complainants.

EX. R-1 is the affidavit of Harjinder Singh Sodhi, J.E. an employee of opposite parties. It is reproduced as under : "(1) That the transformer installed in village near Mahadev Kalan was working properly and no complaint was received by the deponent in respect of the working of the transformer. (2) That on 12.4.1999, there was heavy storm and the switch of the Feeder was off from 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. No complaint regarding the wrong working of the transformer was received during the past two months. (3) That there is no negligence on the part of the deponent of Board."

MR. Sodhi in his affidavit Ex. R-1 has tried to state that no complaint was received by him in respect of working of the transformer. It is stated by him that on 12.4.1999 there was heavy storm and that switch of the feeder was off from 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. However, his affidavit is of no help to the opposite parties because in the written statement the opposite parties have not specifically denied that the fire was caused by sparking of the transformer in question and that as a result thereof wheat fields of the complainant were destroyed. Besides the opposite party No. 3 had written a memo dated 30.9.1999 Ex. C-3 requesting the complainant to supply her estimate of loss of her wheat crop by fire as prepared by Revenue Authorities. This obviously means that opposite party No. 3 was admitted that the fields of the complainant were destroyed by fire caused by the sparking of their transformer and that they were ready to pay the compensation on the basis of estimate of loss prepared by the revenue authorities. In view of the factual position stated above, the District Forum has concluded that the sparking in the transformer of the opposite parties, which destroyed the wheat fields of the complainant was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. We affirm the above said order of the District Forum.

District Forum has also rightly held that the complainants were consumers of the opposite parties and their complaints under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 were maintainable and the District Forum has got the jurisdiction to decide the complaints. District Forum has so held after discussing the matter in detail and after relying upon the authorities mentioned below: "1. 1993(2) Consumer Law Today 351 (Haryana State Commission), Prem Pal Saini v. SDO, HSEB, Yamuna Nagar. 2. 1993 CPC-149 (Haryana State Commission), Davinder Bir Singh v. SDO, H.S.E.B., Kurukshetra." We do not want to got into the detail of the matter as the point of jurisdiction has only been agitated by the Counsel for the opposite parties half-heartedly and it was so before the District Forum also.

DISTRICT Forum has quantified the loss fire to the wheat fields of the complainants on the factual position provided by the complainants in thier complaints. The detail of the factual position on the basis of which the loss has been quantified are given in Para Nos. 13 and 14 of the order of the DISTRICT Forum. We do not find any reason to differ from the decision taken by the DISTRICT Forum. In view of our discussion made above, all these appeals, namely, Appeal Nos. 1387 of 2000, 3 and 4 of 2001 are dismissed with costs, which are quantified as Rs. 500/- in each case. Appeals dismissed.