State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sdo, Op, Uhbvnl, Dhand, District ... vs Dilla Ram Son Of Soran Ram @ Madho Ram, Son ... on 5 February, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA First Appeal No.926 of 2013 Date of Institution: 16.12.2013 Date of Decision: 05.02.2014 1. SDO, OP, UHBVNL, Dhand, District Kaithal. 2. UHBVNL through its Secretary, Sector 6, Shakti Bhawan, Panchkula. Appellants (Opposite Parties No.4 & 5) Versus 1. Dilla Ram son of Soran Ram @ Madho Ram, son of Bishna, Caste Gujjar, r/o Village Teek, District Kaithal. Respondent (Complainant) 2. Rambhaj, Lineman. 3. Pehal Singh, Lineman. 4. Bheerbhan, Lineman. All employees under the office of Sub Division (OP), UHBVNL, Dhand (Kaithal). Respondents Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 CORAM: Honble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President. Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member. For the Parties: Mr. B.D. Bhatia, Advocate for appellants. Mr. Harish Mehla, Advocate for respondent No.1 O R D E R
Justice Nawab Singh, President (Oral):
This appeal has been filed by Sub Divisional Officer (Operation), Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited (for short UHBVNL), Kaithal and another, against the order dated November 13th, 2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (for short District Forum), Kaithal, whereby the appellants were directed to pay Rs.35,000/- to complainant-Dilla Ram (respondent No.1 herein) alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of complaint till its realization and to pay Rs.2200/- as compensation for harassment etc.
2. On 5th of May, 2008 at about 12.15 P.M, a fire took place in the fields of the respondent No.1 due to sudden sparking in the Low Tension (for short LT) wire. Fire Tenders were called and the fire was extinguished. The entire wheat straw was burnt to ashes.
3. Respondent No.1 informed the police. Daily Diary Report (Exhibit C-3) was recorded in Police Station Sadar, Kaithal. He moved an application (Exhibit C-7) to the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal, to direct the appellants to pay him the compensation, which was further forwarded to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Kaithal. The officials of revenue as well as the appellants-UHBVNL inspected the spot. As per the report (Exhibit.C-6) prepared by revenue department, about 300 quintals of wheat straw worth Rs.36,000/- was burnt. A detailed report (Exhibit C-8) was also prepared by the appellants testifying the facts of the incident.
4 The solitary submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the occurrence took place on May 5th, 2008 and the complaint was filed on August 3rd, 2011, that is, beyond the period of limitation of two years prescribed in Section 24-A of the Act. Therefore, the complaint ought to have been dismissed by the District Forum on the point of limitation.
5. Indisputably, the respondent No.1 lodged the report (Exhibit C-3) in the Police Station, Sadar Kaithal immediately after the occurrence. He also filed the application (Exhibit C-7) before the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal to take action on his complaint. The Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal referred the matter to the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Kaithal. The officials of the revenue department as well as UHBVNL visited the spot and submitted their reports Exhibit C-6 and Exhibit C-8 respectively. It was observed in report (Exhibit C-6) that 300 quintals wheat straw amounting to Rs.36,000/- was burnt. The officials of UHBVNL in their report (Exhibit C-8) observed that the fire took place on account of lengthy and loose span touching the wires due to poor maintenance of the electricity line. Notwithstanding this overwhelming evidence on the record, the UHBVNL failed to pay the amount of compensation.
6. The sequence of events suggests that the delay in filing of the complaint was due to the reason because neither the respondent No.1-complainant was compensated nor his claim was denied/repudiated. Long silence on the part of the appellants is evidence enough of the guilt on their part, which makes it a case of recurring cause of action to file the present complaint. Therefore, the contention raised is of no help to the appellants.
7. In view of the above, the order under challenge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
8. The statutory amount of Rs.20,000/-
deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the respondent No.1 (complainant) against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any filed in this case.
Announced:
05.02.2014 (Urvashi Agnihotri) Member (Nawab Singh) President CL