P.S.E.B. vs Gopal

THE opposite party before the District Forum has filed this appeal against the order dated 22-5-1992, passed by the District Forum, Ropar in complaint No. 26 of 1992 by which the complaint has been allowed and the opposite party has been directed to pay Rs. 7,000/ - as compensation to the complainant for the loss of his bufallo due to their negligence.

THE facts leading to this appeal lie in a narrow compass. It was alleged that the electric wire of 220 K. V. passed over the quarter of the complainant and the pole for the supply of electricity was fixed by the opposite party near his quarter. It was averred in the complaint that on 28-5-1990, the electric wires of the said pole became loose and one of the wires fell on the ground. THE case of the complainant was that on 29-5-1990 at about 6.00 a.m., his buffalo while grazing in the open site within the boundary wall, came into contact with the loose wire and fell down dead due to electrocution. THE post mortem of the buffalo was conducted and the F.I.R. was lodged with the police. Notice for compensation was given to the opposite party but nothing was done. THE complainant prayed in the complaint that compensation of Rs. 10,000/- may be awarded to him for the loss suffered by him. On notice being issued, the opposite party stoutly resisted the claim of the complainant. THE opposite party took the stand that the line where the buffalo of the complainant had met with an accident, was being maintained by the S.D.O., Mechanical Division, Sirhind Canal, Ropar and the S.D.O., P.W.D., B&R (Electrical), Ropar and that the opposite party had nothing to do with the incident. In support of his case, the complainant filed various documents and the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavits Ex. R-1 and R-2 in support of its case.

The learned District Forum after a full appraisal of the oral testimony and the documents placed on the record and discussing the pros and cons of the case in depth, came to a firm conclusion that the buffalo was electrocuted with the wire lying loose from the pole and the P.W.D., B&R (Electrical) was not at all responsible in this respect and the entire responsibility lay with the P.S.E.B. and this fact was further confirmed by the report of Mr. J.N. Kaushik, Member of the Consumer Forum, who had inspected the spot. Consequently, the District Forum proceeded to grant relief to the complainant against the appellant.

MR. H.N. Mehtani, learned Counsel for the appellant primarily raised a somewhat specious contention that the learned District Forum had erred in holding that the buffalo of the complainant-respondent died as a result of negligence of the P.S.E.B. because the alleged mishap took place within the campus of Sirhind, Canal Colony, Ropar and the electric connection was given in the name of S.D.O., Mechanical Division, Sirhind Canal, Ropar for campus lighting and the said departments themselves maintained the electrical wiring etc. In support of this assertion, MR. Mehtani referred us to the affidavits Ex. R-l and R-2 filed by MR. Kulwant Singh Khera, Assistant Executive Engineer, D.S. Sub Division, P.S.E.B., Ropar and MR. Tirath Singh, Executive Engineer of the same Division. On that tenuous basis, it was sought to be argued that the appellant was absolved of the liability to the complainant. The aforesaid submission has to be only noticed and rejected and indeed brings little credit to the appellant-department. It deserves highlighting that in the affidavits Exs. R-l and R-2 filed by the aforesaid officials of the Electricity Department, it has no doubt been averred that the S.D.O., Mechanical, Sirhind Canal, Ropar was responsible for making suitable arrangements for lighting the Campus but it has been turned out from the record that the control by the Mechanical Division, Sirhind Canal had long ago been transferred to P.W.D., B&R and the Electrical Wing of the department was to look-after the inner electrical wiring only. To ascertain the correct factual position, the District Forum had requested Mr. J.N. Kaushik, a Member of the Forum to inspect the spot and submit his report. Mr. J.N. Kaushik inspected the spot in the presence of the parties and submitted his report on 12-3-1992 in the following terms : "As per report, there is an electric line supported by the poles around the colony. It was initially meant for providing the street light in the colony. But for the last several years, it was lying dead as the electricity connections have been dis-connected long time back. Later on, the P.S.E.B. desired to provide electricity to some private houses beyond the said dead line and for that purpose, the electric wires were stretched touching the back and western sides of the quarters. These wires were connected with the poles of the dead electric line. After some time, there happened to be a short circuit and dead line became alive. With the wire falling on the ground, the buffalo was electrocuted."

In the face of such impeccable evidence, it is manifest that the primal argument of the appellant appears to be one of desperation and is wholly devoid of merit. It bears repetition that a denial of this kind at the appellate stage by the appellant that there was no negligence on the part of the Electricity Department, appears to be not only specious but indeed unethical on the part of the appellant to sav that they were not responsible for the mishap. We have not the least hesitation in rejecting the aforesaid contention out of hand.

THE only other argument advanced on behalf of the appellant was that the spot inspection by Mr. J.N. Kaushik Member of the Forum, was done in the absence of the representative of the appellant and therefore, the inspection report should not have been relied upon by the District Forum to arrive at its conclusion. This submission is also without any legs to stand upon. THE order for inspection of the spot was passed by the District Forum in the presence of Mr. Kulwant Singh, Assistant Executive Engineer, P.S.E.B. Mr. Kulwant Singh should have been vigilant enough to be present at the spot when the inspection was done by Mr. J.N, Kaushik. Mr. Mehtani had to concede that this was a mistake on the part of Mr. Kulwant Singh. All the aspects of the case have been dealt with by the learned District Forum so succinctly in its order that it looks wasteful to traverse the same ground over again. It more than suffices to say that we hold the findings therein as impeccable and worthy of total affirmance. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed. We would, however, not burden the appellant with any costs. Appeal dismissed.