SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER (O.P.) SUB DIVISION, H.S.E.B. vs PREM LAL SAINI

THE Haryana State Electricity Board appeals against the order of the District Forum, Yamunanagar granting a marginal compensation of Rs. 5000/- to the respondent-consumer.

THE facts are not in serious dispute. THE respondent has an electricity connection for his tubewell in his land, bearing Account No. S/3/ 811. It is common ground that for the supply of energy a transformer was installed by the appellants on the boundary of the land of the respondent and the supply line there from to the tubewell of the respondent passed through his fields. It was his case that sugarcane from half of the area had been harvested by him in February 1992 whilst the other half was yet standing in the field. It was the case that due to patent negligence of the appellant Board the wires of the supply line had become naked and persistently sparked dangerously & posing a serious threat of ignition to the crop below and nearby. THE respondent on the 12th of May, 1992 lodged a complaint with the official of the Board in the register maintained at the complaint centre in village Saran on the said date. However no action whatsoever was taken and the sparking continued and in fact became more severe. Yet again on the 18th of May, 1992 the respondent submitted another written application to the officials with a request to remove the defect in the cables which again seems to have fallen on deaf ears. On the following night the sparking from the cables and the transformer ultimately led to a fire which engulfed the harvested and unharvested part of his sugarcane field causing a loss to the tune of Rs. 12,000/-. THE claim was lodged with the appellant-Board expeditiously which was recorded at Serial No. 447 dated 21st of May, 1992 but no redress was afforded compelling the respondent to knock at the door of the District Forum. The complaint was earlier dismissed on the ground that the complainant did not come within the ambit of the District Forum. The said view was reversed by this Commission on the 18th of June, 1993 and the matter was remanded for trial on merits.

The appellants in their written statement admitted that the tubewell was there on the land with the electricity connection. The plea was that there was no defect in the transformer or the cable wire and no fire took place as alleged. The curious stand was that the whole version was false and frivolous and the objection raised was that the respondent had not lodged the First Information Report.

THE respondent led evidence in support of his case to establish that the land in which the tubewell was installed was his and was adjacent to his other land. THEre being no rebuttal of this evidence the finding went in his favour. THE District Forum further relied upon the documentary evidence on the record and equally on the affidavits of Harpal, Hem Raj, Sat Pal Saini, Banwari Lal, Ram Nath, Anjani Kumar and the complainant''s own affidavit with regard to the occurrence of the fire and the loss of the sugarcane crop. THE photographs placed on the file were also adduced for corroboration. Apparently the deponents of the affidavits were not even challenged by way of cross-examination. THE District Forum accepted the virtually unrebutted evidence of the complainant & granted the relief in the terms noticed at the very outset. Mr. Bhupinder Singh tine learned Counsel for the appellant Board with considerable persistence and vehemence attempted to advance their crumbling case. It was sought to be argued that the transformer was at a distance of around 50 feet from the burnt sugarcane field and it was not likely that the fire could travel as far. The affidavit evidence of complainant''s witnesses was sought to be as sailed on the tenous ground that these were somewhat identical in nature and should not have been accepted on that score.

THE submissions aforesaid have only to be noticed and rejected. What first seems to meet the eye is the fact that the appellants have only themselves to blame for virtually allowing to go their case by default. As the District Forum has noticed there was hardly any rebuttal evidence against the mass of testimony adduced on behalf of the respondent complainant. It would appear that the number of deponents who had put in their testimony in support of the complainant''s case were not even sought to be challenged by way of cross-examination. In such a fact situation the District Forum was entitled to place reliance upon the same and Mr. Bhupinder Singh could raise no meaningful challenge against the same. The learned Counsel''s somewhat curious plea that the fire ignited by sparking could not travel a distance of less than 50 feet is again untenable. It is common ground that the incident took place in the night of the summer on the 19th of May, 1992. It was the complainant''s case that half of the sugarcane had been harvested with the result that the foliage therein would become bone-dry and easily ignitable and once that is so it cannot be said that a fire ignition could not travel a distance whether by itself or when fanned by a wind. In any case there was direct testimony of as many as seven deponents with regard to the origin and the subsequent conflagration of the fire which was neither effectively challenged by way of cross-examination nor any evidence led in rebuttal thereto. The finding of the District Forum on the point consequently merits unreserved confirmation. For the foregoing reasons this appeal is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.