State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pspcl vs Nirmal Kaur on 25 March, 2015
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
Misc. Application No. 2552 of 2014
in/and
First Appeal No. 1625 of 2014
Date of institution: 18.12.2014
Date of Decision: 25.3.2015
1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. through Head of Department,
The Mall, Patiala.
2. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Sub Division Kahnuwan,
Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
3. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Division Gurdaspur, Tehsil
and District Gurdaspur.
Appellants/OPs
Versus
1. Smt. Nirmal Kaur w/o Harjit Singh
2. Harjit Singh s/o Sh. Jaswant Singh,
Both residents of Village Namane, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur.
Respondents/Complainants
First Appeal against the order dated
28.10.2014 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Present:-
For the appellants : Ms. Meena Bansal, Advocate
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
The appellants/Ops (hereinafter referred as the OPs) have filed the present appeal against the order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur(hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 34 dated 28.1.2014 vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant(hereinafter referred as the complainant) 2 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1625 OF 2014 was allowed with a direction to the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 10 lacs and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost within a period of 30 days of the copy of the order, failing which the aggregate amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till the date of payment. Misc. Application No. 2552 of 2014
2. An application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone the delay of 1 day in filing the appeal. It was stated that the complaint was decided on 28.10.2014 and certified copy was issued on 17.11.2014 and during the official process for granting permission to file the appeal, the delay of 1 day caused in filing the appeal, which is neither deliberate not intentional, rather due to reason mentioned above and the same may kindly be condoned. As the delay is only 1 day, so, in the interest of justice, the same is hereby condoned and application is hereby disposed off. MAIN CASE
3. The complaint was filed by the complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against the OPs on the allegations that the complainants are the parents of deceased Baljinder Singh. It was averred that they were doing their agriculture in the land, which was in the name of father of complainant No. 2 Jaswant Singh in the revenue estate of Village Namane, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. They had got installed an electric connection in Rectangle No. 2, Killa No. 20 for irrigating their agricultural land, which was specifically shown at point 'X' in the attached site plan. They had been regularly paying the tubewell connection charges, therefore, they were beneficiary of the tubewell connection released 3 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1625 OF 2014 in the name of Jaswant Singh by the Ops. There are some other Deras in the revenue estate of Village Namane and electricity is being supplied to this by the Ops through Pole at point 'Y' to the deras shown at point 'Z'. In the evening of 15.9.2013, there was heavy storm due to which LT line had fallen down. The complainant and their son, namely, Baljinder Singh approached op No. 2 for uplifting of the fallen LT line and to release the electricity connection to their tubewell and other Deras. They and other inhabitants of the deras two times further requested OP No. 2 to do the needful and on 18.9.2013, a written application was given but to no effect. On 23.9.2013 at about 7.30 a.m., the son of the complainant, namely, Baljinder Singh went to his fields in order to irrigate the fields through Canal Water as tubewell connection was out of order. The electric wires since 15.9.2013 were lying as it is. When Baljinder Singh was in the process to irrigate the fields, he suffered electric shock. It was alleged that the Ops had released the electricity without lifting the LT lines as a result of that the son of the complainant had died. The post mortem on the dead body was got conducted at Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur. FIR No. 85/13 to this effect was also registered at P.S. Kahnuwan under Sections 304-A IPC against the personnel of PSPCL. The news item was also published in the print media. It has been alleged that the death of their son was caused due to the negligence on the part of the Ops. Hence, the complaint with a direction to the Ops to make payment of Rs. 18 lacs as compensation as the deceased was student of Engineering and was studying at 4 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1625 OF 2014 Pannu Polytechnic College, VPO Mari Panwan, District Gurdaspur and Rs. 50,000/- due to mental and physical harassment.
4. The complaint was contested by the Ops, who filed the written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant was false and frivolous; they had not approached the Forum with clean hands and that the complaint was not maintainable. On merits, it was admitted that Jaswant Singh father of the complainant No. 2 was owner of agricultural land situated in Revenue Estate of village Namane. However, it was denied that the complainants were the beneficiary of Jaswant Singh, as such, they were consumers qua the Ops. It was further denied that on 15.9.2013 in the evening there was a heavy storm or that the complainant and their son Baljinder Singh had approached OP No. 2 for uplifting the fallen LT line and to release the electricity to their son and other deras. It was further denied that they had further requested for two times or had moved an application dated 18.9.2013. It was further denied that on 23.9.2013 at about 7.30 a.m., the son of the complainant, namely, Baljinder Singh had gone to his field in order to irrigate the field through canal water and when he was in the process to irrigate his field, he suffered an electric shock due to fallen LT line on the earth. It was denied that the Ops without uplifting the LT line had released the electricity as a result of which Baljinder Singh was electrocuted. It was also denied that post mortem was conducted in Civil Hospital, Gurdaspur and FIR under Section 304-A IPC was got registered against the official of the Ops. Since no alleged accident had occurred due to the negligence of the Ops, therefore, the 5 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1625 OF 2014 question to pay Rs. 18 lacs as compensation does not arise. It was also denied that the deceased was student of Pannu Polytechnic College, Marri Panwan, Distt. Gurdaspur and studying in the 3rd semester.
5. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
6. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence affidavit of Harjinder Singh Ex. C-1, affidavit of Salwinder Singh, Sarpanch Ex. C-2, affidavit of Pawan Kumar, Civil Engineer Ex. C-3 and documents Exs. C-4 to C-28. On the other hand, the Ops had tendered into evidence affidavit of Ram Gopal, SDO Ex. Op-1.
7. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written reply filed by the OPs, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint so filed by the complainant was allowed as referred above.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
9. The counsel for the appellants submitted that on 15.9.2013, there was a storm and poles and lines have broken down and whole electricity system was disturbed. Accordingly, G.O. Switch of transformer of Sohan Singhwal Raowan falling on 11 KVA feeder was cut off and supply to the Dera of Mohinder Singh electrical supply from 100 KVA transformer of Sohan Singhwal Raowan was cut off. Whereas in the dera of Rattan Singh supply was from 100 KVA transformer Pindwala Namane. On 23.9.2013, the death of Baljinder Singh had occurred due to electrocution on that day 6 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1625 OF 2014 because there was no supply to the transformer of Sohan Singhwal Raowan and the supply was to the Dera of Rattan Singh and Mohinder Singh had joined the supply from 100 KVA transformer Pindwala Namane, as a result of that the back current flowed in the electric line of 100 KVA Sohan Singhwal Raowan, which resulted the death of Baljinder Singh. There is a report of Assistant Electrical Inspector, Punjab Government (till) dated 28.1.2014 and those consumers were found guilty under Section 139 of the Electricity Act. A complaint dated 1.11.2013 was given to the Police officials for registering the FIR against Mohinder Singh and Rattan Singh. The site was also checked by the officials of their Department on 14.10.2013 vide which it was found that the supply was joined from the wires of Rattan Singh's motor. It has been submitted that the learned District Forum has not properly appreciated these facts, therefore, the order of the District Forum is liable to be set-aside.
9. However, in case we go through the written reply filed by the Ops before the District Forum, we are to check whether these pleas were taken by the Ops, which are now being alleged before this Commission in the grounds of appeal. In the grounds of appeal, it has been mentioned that there was a storm on 15.9.2013 vide which the supply to Sohan Singh Raowan Transformer was affected and that supply to Rattan Singh transformer was given Pindwala Namane. Due to the attaching of the wires by Baljinder Singh to got supply from the Rattan Singh Transformer there was a back current flowed in the electric line of 100 KVA Sohan Singhwal Raowan, which caused electrocution of Baljinder Singh. However, in case we go 7 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1625 OF 2014 through the written reply filed by the Ops, even this fact that there was a storm on 15.9.2013 in the evening which disturbed the supply has also been denied. The incident dated 23.9.2013 has also been denied, rather, incident has been totally denied including the FIR under Section 304A IPC against the officials of the PSPCL, therefore, now what is being alleged by the counsel for the appellants before this Commission was not pleaded before the District Forum. Now the legal question arises whether the plea which has not been taken by the Ops before the District Forum can be taken before the Appellate Authority. Certainly, its answer is 'NO'. In case the Ops wanted to take a new plea, they were to move the application for the amendment in their written reply. No such application was moved even before this Commission for amendment in the written reply. So far as evidence is concerned, certainly, in case there are no pleadings, no evidence can be looked into.
10. The incident happened on 23.9.2013 but the report was given by Assistant Electrical Inspector, Punjab Government on 28.1.2014. It is astonishing that in case the incident had happened on 23.9.2013, how the Assistant Electrical Inspector, Punjab Government, Patiala will give the findings that the supply was connected by the deceased from Rattan Singh transformer to Mohinder Singh's transformer, which resulted into back current after a gap of four months. We have also gone through this report placed before this Commission, it is silent on which date the Assistant Electrical Inspector had visited the site. No doubt that application was given to SHO, P.S. Kahnuwan but no document has been placed on 8 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1625 OF 2014 the record whether on the basis of this report, the Police had registered the FIR or it was filed. The complaint further shows that immediately after the disruption of the supply due to storm, request was made to OP No. 2 to correct the lines and start the electricity but with no result. Then a written application has been given dated 18.9.2013, it was placed on the record of the District Forum as Ex. C-
18. The Ops have not come forward what action they had taken on that application. In case the lines were not uplifted after a gap of 8 days because the occurrence taken place on 23.9.2013 whereas the storm had disturbed the supply on 15.9.2013 then certainly, it is case of concern and negligence on the part of the ops, who have not uplifted the wires for the period of 8 days of the storm. This plea has been upheld by the Hon'ble National Commission in the latest judgment I(2015) CPJ 195 "A.P. Transco & Ors. Vs. Bhimeshwara Swamy & Ors.". Except the new pleas taken by the counsel for the appellants in the grounds of appeal as referred above, which cannot be considered in case those pleas were not taken before the District Forum, no other plea was taken by the counsel for the appellant how on the basis of pleadings and documents placed before the District Forum, the findings recorded by the District Forum are incorrect. Therefore, the counsel for the Ops was unable to make out any basis of which the appeal could be admitted. Therefore, the appeal so filed by the Ops is hereby dismissed in limine.
11. The appellants had deposited an amount of Rs. 25,000/- with this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount of Rs. 25,000/- with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the 9 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1625 OF 2014 registry to the respondents in equal share by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days, subject to stay, if any, by the higher Fora/Court.
12. Remaining amount shall be paid by the appellants to the respondents within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order.
13. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 20.3.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran)
Presiding Judicial Member
March 25, 2015. (Jasbir Singh Gill)
as Member