WORLD VIEW CABLE NETWORK vs Gursharan Singh

THIS appeal is against the order dated 30.11.1999 of the District Forum, Ropar in Case Nos. 233/1999 and 234/1999, World View Cable Network through its proprietor Birdavinder Singh is the appellant. Two complaints were filed against the appellant before the District Forum, Ropar. The Case No. 233/1999 was filed by Sh. Gursharan Singh minor son of Sh. Surjit Singh and Case No. 234/1999 was filed by Sh. Navjot Singh minor son of Sh. Harminder Singh. The District Forum, Ropar disposed of both the cases by a single judgment because of similarity of facts and version of the parties in both the cases. The complaints were allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay to Sh. Gursharan Singh of Case File No. 233/1999 an amount of Rs. 8,926/- and to Sh. Navjot Singh of Case File No. 234/1999 an amount of Rs. 13,565/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 1.4.1999 till actual payments besides a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as costs of proceedings in favour of each petitioner.

WHEN the matter came for hearing before this Commission, it was found that the appellant had filed only one appeal against both the cases and had made Sh. Navjot Singh minor of Case File No. 234/1999 as respondent No. 2. As per the Consumer Protection Act, any party aggrieved against the order of the District Forum can file an appeal, but the subject matter of two complaints cannot be clubbed into one appeal although the order might have been prepared in one appeal. As a matter of fact, the appellant should have filed two separate appeals, therefore, the appellant was directed to confine his appeal against one party only and he chose to agitate against Sh. Gursharan Singh minor of Case No. 233/1999, accordingly vide our order the name of Navjot Singh of Case No. 234/1999 as respondent No. 2 was deleted. The case of the complainant was that on 22.3.1999 vide Receipt No. 2374 of Rs. 300/-, the respondent gave the cable connection to him and to Sh. Navjot Singh son of Sh. Harminder Singh. The respondent issued the common receipt of the both said connections w.e.f. 22.3.1999 to 21.4.1999. The respondent gave the cable connection in the Videocon Colour Television through a cable wire. The grouse of the complainant was that due to the improper fixation of the cable wire, the cable wire touched the main electricity supply wire on the dividing road of Phase 3BII and Sector 71, in S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. The main electricity supply wire carries the 11000 volts of main supply from the P.C.L. Chowk towards Phase 8, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, which is Bhakra Supply line. Due to touching of the cable wire, on 1.4.1999, the heavy electric current passed through the said cable network wire in the colour Television of the complainant which got completely damaged and the cable wire was also burnt. The complainant has alleged deficiency in rendering service on account of the respondent. The complainant has further alleged that he several times requested the respondent in the months of April and May, 1999 to pay him the damages but he refused to pay the same, therefore, he was compelled to file the complaint before the District Forum.

On notice being served, a joint written statement was filed by opposite party 1 and opposite party 3 (as opposite party 2 being employee of opposite party 3 was stated to have since left the employment). The opposite parties admitted the hiring of service in question, but only for one T.V. in the House No. 1039, vide receipt Ex. A-3 in Case File No. 233/1999. However, in the said reply, it is especially denied the fixation of the cable wire in the manner alleged by the petitioner as well as any accidental electrification thereof. A certificate Ex. R-2 dated 19.2.1999 purported to have been issued by the Senior Sub-Station Engineer of P.S.E.B., Ropar to the effect that on 1.4.1999, there was no tripping on 66.K.V. line from 220 K.V. Mohali to Phase II Sub-station; was also placed on record. The deficiency in rendering service was denied.

ON the basis of averments, arguments and evidence of the parties, the District Forum held opposite parties deficient in rendering service and passed the aforesaid order. In appeal before us, Mr. K.R. Dhawan, Advocate appeared for the appellant and Mr. Gurdev Singh, Advocate represented the respondent.

WE have heard both the parties. The dispute is regarding the damage caused to the T.V. set by accidental electrification. The case of the complainant is that cable wire coming from 3BII to Sector 71, across the road was fixed loose. It touched the high tension wire of the electric supply. The current passed through the cable wire and as a result of that the T.V. set was totally damaged. To rebut this allegation, the opposite party relied on Ex. R-2 dated 19.2.1999, a certificate issued by Senior Sub-Station Engineer, of P.S.E.B., Ropar to the effect that on 1.4.1999, there was no tripping on 66 K.V. line from 220 K.V. Mohali to Phase II Sub-Station. The finding of the District Forum in this regard is that there is deficiency in rendering service because of technically unsound fixation of cable wire resulting in accidental electrification. The finding of the District Forum is based on the photographs produced by the complainant and the affidavit of Sh. Gurbax Singh. We have perused the said photographs carefully. These photographs were taken after the cable wire had been removed from the site. These photographs cannot be taken as solid and conclusive piece of evidence otherwise also. The affidavit and the cross- examination of Sh. Gurbax Singh an expert of T.V. sets is on file. It establishes that the cause of damage to the T.V. sets is due to the high voltage of electricity but whether the same was passed through the said cable wire connection cannot be ascertained. As the T.V. expert had never visited the site where the cable wire was fixed and he does not know how it was fixed. Whether it could touch the high tension wire, in the manner it was fixed, still remains to be established. Thus, the affidavit and cross-examination of the T.V. expert cannot help the complainant. Moreover, it is highly technical matter where the back firing of the heavy current cannot be ruled out. The cable wire touching the high tension wire will result in tripping also. It would back fire the opposite direction i.e. to the spliter before it is coming to the house of the complainant. The District Forum has held the deficiency in rendering service on part of the opposite party on the basis that the opposite party promptly removed the offending cable wire from the spot and did not bring on record any approximate fixation of the cable wire with their own set of photographs to support their counter version. Thus, on the basis of suspicion and apprehensions only, the damages cannot be levied on the other party. There has to be cogent, relevant, solid and substantial proof to establish the deficiency in rendering service. Thus, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to establish the deficiency in rendering service on the part of the opposite party. We, therefore, hold that District Forum has erred in holding the opposite party guilty of rendering service. Hence, we allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 30.11.1999 of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.