State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U P S E B vs Rajan Lal Sharma on 3 June, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010 First Appeal No. A/1999/799 ( Date of Filing : 27 Mar 1999 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. U P S E B A ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Rajan Lal Sharma A ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/1999/798 ( Date of Filing : 27 Mar 1999 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 17/08/1994 in Case No. C/1993/454, of District Aligarh) 1. U P S E B A ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Rajan Lal Sharma A ...........Respondent(s) First Appeal No. A/1999/800 ( Date of Filing : 02 Jul 1999 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated in Case No. of District State Commission) 1. U.P.P.C.L. Hathras ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Rajan Lal Sharma Hathrash ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PRESIDENT PRESENT: Dated : 03 Jun 2022 Final Order / Judgement
RESERVED STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW APPEAL NO. 798 OF 1999 (Against the judgment/order dated 17-08-1994 in Complaint Case No.456/1993 of the District Consumer Commission, Aligarh) U. P. State Electricity Board Shakti Bhawan Lucknow Through its Chairman
02.Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Divison Hathras, District Hathras (Executive Engineer, Laldigi, Aligarh has been Made party under earlier circumstances. Now the Hathras has been given the status of District and Distribution Division Hathras is there) ... Appellants Vs.
01.Sri Rajan Lal Sharma S/o Late Kanahiya Lal Sharma
02.Sri Manik Chandra S/o Late Kanahiya Lal Sharma Both R/o Village Banswali Pargana Gorai Tehsil Iglas, District Hathras ...Respondents BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT For the Appellant : Sri Deepak Mehrotra, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 09-06-2022 JUDGMENT PER MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT The instant appeal has been filed by the U. P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow through its Chairman and another under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 17-08-1994 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 456/1993, Rajan Lal and another V/s U. P. State Electricity Board.:2:
Sri Deepak Mehrotra, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants.
Facts of the case stated in brief are that the father of the respondents/complainants Sri Kanahiya Lal Sharma was the consumer of Tubewell connection No. 5154/015061. The said tubewell was installed in the field of the complainants' father for the purposes of irrigating the land. A transformer was installed near the tubewell of the complainants. On 26-03-1993 due to some mechanical defects the said transformer became disorder. The complainants' father informed about the same at the Sub-Station at Iglas. On 31-03-1993 Sri Pratap Singh, Patrolman came on the spot and checked the transformer and assured the complainants' father that the transformer has been checked and said that it is now in working order as usual. He has further told that as soon as the power energy would come in effect, the transformer would be functioning at about 4.00 p.m. The complainants alleged in the complaint that when the electricity supply resumed at 4.30 p.m. then immediately two fuse burnt and the said transformer was burst resulting that fuel alongwith gas and speedy flame came out and therefore the father and mother as well as younger brother named Sri Pramod Kumar of the complainants were badly injured and burnt, causing spot death of the mother named Smt. Logshree.
The complainants' father and his brother were got admitted in the hospital but both died in the hospital on 01-04-1993.
The aforesaid occurrence was caused due to the mechanical defects, wilful misconduct, gross negligence and carelessness on the part of the officials and employees of the opposite parties. The complainants have to expend a huge amount in the treatment and funeral ceremonies and they deprived of the immortal love and affection of their father, mother and brother. The complainants further alleged in the complaint that they tried their best to settle the matter amicably but the opposite party did not pay any heed hence the complainants filed the complaint before the learned District Consumer Commission, Aligarh with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that for reasons given above, a sum of Rs.99,000/- may kindly be awarded to the applicants as :3: compensation on account of the death of Sri Kanahaiya Lal Sharma against the opposite party and pass such suitable orders as this Hon'ble District Forum, Aligarh may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, as also to meet the ends of justice."
The opposite parties filed their written statement before the learned District Consumer Commission, Aligarh and submitted that the tubewell connection was sanctioned and the transformer of 25 K.V.A. was installed on the same pole/pair. The complaint was made and accordingly the staff of the Electricity Department Sri Pratap Singh went to check the defect of transformer. He rectified the defect of fuse and assured that the transformer would be working at about 4.00 p.m. as usual. According to the people and the complainants the transformer burst and the flames caught the father, mother and brother of the complainants. The complainants' mother died on the spot. The father and brother of the complainants were badly injured and they have been admitted in the hospital where they died.
It is submitted by the opposite parties the appellant that the complaint was not made of the accident. It was known by the news papers. Up Khand Adhikari made spot inquiry and the villagers informed about the accident. The complainants did not inform the alleged accident in time, therefore, the compensation was not awarded. It is wrong to say that the accident occurred due to negligence of the opposite parties/the appellant. This type of accident never occurred. To know the cause of accident the matter was sent to the Parishad to appoint Special Committee. The transformer may burst due to some technical fault. The opposite parties' workers cannot be called deficient or negligence. The opposite parties/the appellant alleges what are they doing under the transformer? The compensation shall be awarded by Adhikchan Abhiyanta only Rs.10,000/- for each. There is no provision to exceed this sum. The case has been sent to Electric Defence Directorate on 11-03-1993 through Adhikchan Abhiyanta, Aligarh and as soon as the information is received they will act accordingly.
The learned District Consumer Commission after perusing the :4: materials available on record and considering the evidence of the parties and after considering the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the parties it came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service by the opposite parties and the complainants should get compensation from the opposite parties.
In view of the aforesaid reasons recorded by the District Consumer Commission the following order has been passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Aligarh.
"The opposite parties are directed to give compensation Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) to each complainant within one month from the date of communication. This judgment judgment shall govern all these three cases."
Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length.
I have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission as well as records.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the judgment and order is absolutely illegal, unjust and arbitrary. The judgment and order is absolutely non-speaking order. The learned District Consumer Commission has not given findings on a lot of points raised by the opposite parties in their written statement. In fact the judgment is totally devoid of reasonings and findings. The judgment and order under challenge in this appeal is without jurisdiction.
It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the dispute raised in the memorandum of complaint is related to the electrical accident which had taken place in the fields i.e. on a public place of common use and as such nobody can claim its consumer-hood with respect to the general/public supply. The accident had taken place at the place where the transformer was kept/installed. This transformer was installed for supply of electricity to lot of consumers of the locality. The transformer was burned and burst all of sudden in such a manner that it caught fire and oil which was filled in it spreaded around. It was :5: subsequently found that the welding of transformer part was detached and this resulted in the bursting of transformer. There was no negligence on the part of the appellants in this incidence.
It is further submitted by the appellants that the transformers are not manufactured by the appellant. The instant incident of bursting of transformer is first and last incident of its kind. The appellants are themselves surprised at the happening of this incident. The complainants are not the consumers of appellants with respect to this transformer which was kept for the entire locality and as such they cannot file the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. The nature and dispute is also beyond the scope and purview of the Consumer Protection Act. This does not at all related to any kind of defect or deficiency in service.
It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that Sri Pratap Singh, Petrolman has been looking after the various local complaints with respect to any electrical disorder for quite a long time and he is fully experienced and trained person. The alleged electrical accident was not at all result of the current. The persons died due to this accident were not at all victim of electrical current. They are said to have suffered burn injury which are caused on their body due to the hot oil which bursted out from the transformer and a fire took place and as such it comes under category of remoteness of damages. If these persons had not been near the transformer there would not have been any damage to their life. The deceased persons were acting negligently and carelessly while roaming around the transformer and as such they become victim. The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to award the compensation in such an illegal and arbitrary manner.
The District Consumer Commission has categorically recorded the finding that the complainants informed about the accident to the nearest police station. The complainants' mother had died therefore funeral ceremony had to arrange. The father and brother were badly burnt and the complainant had to arrange the vehicle to send them to Medical College, Aligarh, therefore, there was no time to inform the sub station of the opposite parties. The complainants' parents and brother were working in their field not under the transformer but apart from there about twelve feet.:6:
The learned District Consumer Commission opined that the disorder transformer was made in order by the opposite parties' worker Sri Pratap Singh but he was not competent enough to know about mechanical defect.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, and after going through the material and evidence available on record and particularly the findings recorded by the learned District Consumer Commission, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission is fully justified and is correct, as such need no interference and as such is liable to be upheld.
In view of the aforesaid the appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be dismissed. The appellants are directed to comply with the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission within 30 days from today by paying the decretal amount.
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned District Consumer Commission are confirmed. The appellants are directed to comply with the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission within 30 days from today by paying the decretal amount.
The office is directed to issue the certified copy of this order to the parties within a week as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission today itself.
( JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR ) PRESIDENT Pnt.
RESERVED STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW APPEAL NO. 799 OF 1999 (Against the judgment/order dated 17-08-1994 in Complaint Case No.455/1993 of the District Consumer Commission, Aligarh) U. P. State Electricity Board Shakti Bhawan Lucknow Through its Chairman
02.Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Divison Hathras, District Hathras (Executive Engineer, Laldigi, Aligarh has been Made party under earlier circumstances. Now the Hathras has been given the status of District and Distribution Division Hathras is there) ... Appellants Vs.
01.Sri Rajan Lal Sharma S/o Late Kanahiya Lal Sharma
02.Sri Manik Chandra S/o Late Kanahiya Lal Sharma Both R/o Village Banswali Pargana Gorai Tehsil Iglas, District Hathras ...Respondents BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT For the Appellant : Sri Deepak Mehrotra, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : 09-06-2022 JUDGMENT PER MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT The instant appeal has been filed by the U. P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow through its Chairman and another under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 17-08-1994 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 455/1993, Rajan Lal and another V/s U. P. State Electricity Board.:2:
Sri Deepak Mehrotra, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants.
Facts of the case stated in brief are that the father of the respondents/complainants Sri Kanahiya Lal Sharma was the consumer of Tubewell connection No. 5154/015061. The said tubewell was installed in the field of the complainants' father for the purposes of irrigating the land. A transformer was installed near the tubewell of the complainants. On 26-03-1993 due to some mechanical defects the said transformer became disorder. The complainants' father informed about the same at the Sub-Station at Iglas. On 31-03-1993 Sri Pratap Singh, Patrolman came on the spot and checked the transformer and assured the complainants' father that the transformer has been checked and said that it is now in working order as usual. He has further told that as soon as the power energy would come in effect, the transformer would be functioning at about 4.00 p.m. The complainants alleged in the complaint that when the electricity supply resumed at 4.30 p.m. then immediately two fuse burnt and the said transformer was burst resulting that fuel alongwith gas and speedy flame came out and therefore the father and mother as well as younger brother named Sri Pramod Kumar of the complainants were badly injured and burnt, causing spot death of the mother named Smt. Logshree.
The complainants' father and his brother were got admitted in the hospital but both died in the hospital on 01-04-1993.
The aforesaid occurrence was caused due to the mechanical defects, wilful misconduct, gross negligence and carelessness on the part of the officials and employees of the opposite parties. The complainants have to expend a huge amount in the treatment and funeral ceremonies and they deprived of the immortal love and affection of their father, mother and brother. The complainants further alleged in the complaint that they tried their best to settle the matter amicably but the opposite party did not pay any heed hence the complainants filed the complaint before the learned District Consumer Commission, Aligarh with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that for reasons given above, a sum of Rs.99,000/- may kindly be awarded to the applicants as :3: compensation on account of the death of Sri Pramod Kumar against the opposite party and pass such suitable orders as this Hon'ble District Forum, Aligarh may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, as also to meet the ends of justice."
The opposite parties filed their written statement before the learned District Consumer Commission, Aligarh and submitted that the tubewell connection was sanctioned and the transformer of 25 K.V.A. was installed on the same pole/pair. The complaint was made and accordingly the staff of the Electricity Department Sri Pratap Singh went to check the defect of transformer. He rectified the defect of fuse and assured that the transformer would be working at about 4.00 p.m. as usual. According to the people and the complainants the transformer burst and the flames caught the father, mother and brother of the complainants. The complainants' mother died on the spot. The father and brother of the complainants were badly injured and they have been admitted in the hospital where they died.
It is submitted by the opposite parties the appellant that the complaint was not made of the accident. It was known by the news papers. Up Khand Adhikari made spot inquiry and the villagers informed about the accident. The complainants did not inform the alleged accident in time, therefore, the compensation was not awarded. It is wrong to say that the accident occurred due to negligence of the opposite parties/the appellant. This type of accident never occurred. To know the cause of accident the matter was sent to the Parishad to appoint Special Committee. The transformer may burst due to some technical fault. The opposite parties' workers cannot be called deficient or negligence. The opposite parties/the appellant alleges what are they doing under the transformer? The compensation shall be awarded by Adhikchan Abhiyanta only Rs.10,000/- for each. There is no provision to exceed this sum. The case has been sent to Electric Defence Directorate on 11-03-1993 through Adhikchan Abhiyanta, Aligarh and as soon as the information is received they will act accordingly.
The learned District Consumer Commission after perusing the :4: materials available on record and considering the evidence of the parties and after considering the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the parties it came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service by the opposite parties and the complainants should get compensation from the opposite parties.
In view of the aforesaid reasons recorded by the District Consumer Commission the following order has been passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Aligarh.
"The opposite parties are directed to give compensation Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) to each complainant within one month from the date of communication. This judgment shall govern all these three cases."
Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length.
I have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission as well as records.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the judgment and order is absolutely illegal, unjust and arbitrary. The judgment and order is absolutely non-speaking order. The learned District Consumer Commission has not given findings on a lot of points raised by the opposite parties in their written statement. In fact the judgment is totally devoid of reasonings and findings. The judgment and order under challenge in this appeal is without jurisdiction.
It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the dispute raised in the memorandum of complaint is related to the electrical accident which had taken place in the fields i.e. on a public place of common use and as such nobody can claim its consumer-hood with respect to the general/public supply. The accident had taken place at the place where the transformer was kept/installed. This transformer was installed for supply of electricity to lot of consumers of the locality. The transformer was burned and burst all of sudden in such a manner that it caught fire and oil which was filled in it spreaded around. It was :5: subsequently found that the welding of transformer part was detached and this resulted in the bursting of transformer. There was no negligence on the part of the appellants in this incidence.
It is further submitted by the appellants that the transformers are not manufactured by the appellant. The instant incident of bursting of transformer is first and last incident of its kind. The appellants are themselves surprised at the happening of this incident. The complainants are not the consumers of appellants with respect to this transformer which was kept for the entire locality and as such they cannot file the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. The nature and dispute is also beyond the scope and purview of the Consumer Protection Act. This does not at all related to any kind of defect or deficiency in service.
It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that Sri Pratap Singh, Petrolman has been looking after the various local complaints with respect to any electrical disorder for quite a long time and he is fully experienced and trained person. The alleged electrical accident was not at all result of the current. The persons died due to this accident were not at all victim of electrical current. They are said to have suffered burn injury which are caused on their body due to the hot oil which bursted out from the transformer and a fire took place and as such it comes under category of remoteness of damages. If these persons had not been near the transformer there would not have been any damage to their life. The deceased persons were acting negligently and carelessly while roaming around the transformer and as such they become victim. The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to award the compensation in such an illegal and arbitrary manner.
The District Consumer Commission has categorically recorded the finding that the complainants informed about the accident to the nearest police station. The complainants' mother had died therefore funeral ceremony had to arrange. The father and brother were badly burnt and the complainant had to arrange the vehicle to send them to Medical College, Aligarh, therefore, there was no time to inform the sub station of the opposite parties. The complainants' parents and brother were working in their field not under the transformer but apart from there about twelve feet.:6:
The learned District Consumer Commission opined that the disorder transformer was made in order by the opposite parties' worker Sri Pratap Singh but he was not competent enough to know about mechanical defect.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, and after going through the material and evidence available on record and particularly the findings recorded by the learned District Consumer Commission, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission is fully justified and is correct, as such need no interference and as such is liable to be upheld.
In view of the aforesaid the appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be dismissed. The appellants are directed to comply with the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission within 30 days from today by paying the decretal amount.
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned District Consumer Commission are confirmed. The appellants are directed to comply with the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission within 30 days from today by paying the decretal amount.
The office is directed to issue the certified copy of this order to the parties within a week as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission today itself.
( JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR ) PRESIDENT Pnt.
RESERVED STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW APPEAL NO. 800 OF 1999 (Against the judgment/order dated 17-08-1994 in Complaint Case No.454/1993 of the District Consumer Commission, Aligarh) U. P. State Electricity Board Shakti Bhawan Lucknow Through its Chairman
02.Executive Engineer Electricity Distribution Divison Hathras, District Hathras (Executive Engineer, Laldigi, Aligarh has been Made party under earlier circumstances. Now the Hathras has been given the status of District and Distribution Division Hathras is there) ... Appellants Vs.
01.Sri Rajan Lal Sharma S/o Late Kanahiya Lal Sharma
02.Sri Manik Chandra S/o Late Kanahiya Lal Sharma Both R/o Village Banswali Pargana Gorai Tehsil Iglas, District Hathras ...Respondents BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT For the Appellant : Sri Deepak Mehrotra, Advocate For the Respondent :
Dated : -06-2022 JUDGMENT PER MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
The instant appeal has been filed by the U. P. State Electricity Board, Lucknow through its Chairman and another under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the judgment and order dated 17-08-1994 passed by the District Consumer Commission, Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 454/1993, Rajan Lal and another V/s U. P. State Electricity Board.:2:
Sri Deepak Mehrotra, learned Counsel appeared on behalf of the appellants.
Facts of the case stated in brief are that the father of the respondents/complainants Sri Kanahiya Lal Sharma was the consumer of Tubewell connection No. 5154/015061. The said tubewell was installed in the field of the complainants' father for the purposes of irrigating the land. A transformer was installed near the tubewell of the complainants. On 26-03-1993 due to some mechanical defects the said transformer became disorder. The complainants' father informed about the same at the Sub-Station at Iglas. On 31-03-1993 Sri Pratap Singh, Patrolman came on the spot and checked the transformer and assured the complainants' father that the transformer has been checked and said that it is now in working order as usual. He has further told that as soon as the power energy would come in effect, the transformer would be functioning at about 4.00 p.m. The complainants alleged in the complaint that when the electricity supply resumed at 4.30 p.m. then immediately two fuse burnt and the said transformer was burst resulting that fuel alongwith gas and speedy flame came out and therefore the father and mother as well as younger brother named Sri Pramod Kumar of the complainants were badly injured and burnt, causing spot death of the mother named Smt. Logshree.
The complainants' father and his brother were got admitted in the hospital but both died in the hospital on 01-04-1993.
The aforesaid occurrence was caused due to the mechanical defects, wilful misconduct, gross negligence and carelessness on the part of the officials and employees of the opposite parties. The complainants have to expend a huge amount in the treatment and funeral ceremonies and they deprived of the immortal love and affection of their father, mother and brother. The complainants further alleged in the complaint that they tried their best to settle the matter amicably but the opposite party did not pay any heed hence the complainants filed the complaint before the learned District Consumer Commission, Aligarh with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that for reasons given above, a sum of Rs.99,000/- may kindly be awarded to the applicants as :3: compensation on account of the death of Smt. Longshree Devi against the opposite party and pass such suitable orders as this Hon'ble District Forum, Aligarh may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, as also to meet the ends of justice."
The opposite parties filed their written statement before the learned District Consumer Commission, Aligarh and submitted that the tubewell connection was sanctioned and the transformer of 25 K.V.A. was installed on the same pole/pair. The complaint was made and accordingly the staff of the Electricity Department Sri Pratap Singh went to check the defect of transformer. He rectified the defect of fuse and assured that the transformer would be working at about 4.00 p.m. as usual. According to the people and the complainants the transformer burst and the flames caught the father, mother and brother of the complainants. The complainants' mother died on the spot. The father and brother of the complainants were badly injured and they have been admitted in the hospital where they died.
It is submitted by the opposite parties the appellant that the complaint was not made of the accident. It was known by the news papers. Up Khand Adhikari made spot inquiry and the villagers informed about the accident. The complainants did not inform the alleged accident in time, therefore, the compensation was not awarded. It is wrong to say that the accident occurred due to negligence of the opposite parties/the appellant. This type of accident never occurred. To know the cause of accident the matter was sent to the Parishad to appoint Special Committee. The transformer may burst due to some technical fault. The opposite parties' workers cannot be called deficient or negligence. The opposite parties/the appellant alleges what are they doing under the transformer? The compensation shall be awarded by Adhikchan Abhiyanta only Rs.10,000/- for each. There is no provision to exceed this sum. The case has been sent to Electric Defence Directorate on 11-03-1993 through Adhikchan Abhiyanta, Aligarh and as soon as the information is received they will act accordingly.
The learned District Consumer Commission after perusing the :4: materials available on record and considering the evidence of the parties and after considering the arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the parties it came to the conclusion that there was deficiency in service by the opposite parties and the complainants should get compensation from the opposite parties.
In view of the aforesaid reasons recorded by the District Consumer Commission the following order has been passed by the learned District Consumer Commission, Aligarh.
"The opposite parties are directed to give compensation Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) to each complainant within one month from the date of communication. This judgment shall govern all these three cases."
Feeling aggrieved with the impugned judgment and order the opposite parties have come up in appeal.
I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant at length.
I have perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Consumer Commission as well as records.
Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the judgment and order is absolutely illegal, unjust and arbitrary. The judgment and order is absolutely non-speaking order. The learned District Consumer Commission has not given findings on a lot of points raised by the opposite parties in their written statement. In fact the judgment is totally devoid of reasonings and findings. The judgment and order under challenge in this appeal is without jurisdiction.
It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that the dispute raised in the memorandum of complaint is related to the electrical accident which had taken place in the fields i.e. on a public place of common use and as such nobody can claim its consumer-hood with respect to the general/public supply. The accident had taken place at the place where the transformer was kept/installed. This transformer was installed for supply of electricity to lot of consumers of the locality. The transformer was burned and burst all of sudden in such a manner that it caught fire and oil which was filled in it spreaded around. It was :5: subsequently found that the welding of transformer part was detached and this resulted in the bursting of transformer. There was no negligence on the part of the appellants in this incidence.
It is further submitted by the appellants that the transformers are not manufactured by the appellant. The instant incident of bursting of transformer is first and last incident of its kind. The appellants are themselves surprised at the happening of this incident. The complainants are not the consumers of appellants with respect to this transformer which was kept for the entire locality and as such they cannot file the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. The nature and dispute is also beyond the scope and purview of the Consumer Protection Act. This does not at all related to any kind of defect or deficiency in service.
It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellants that Sri Pratap Singh, Petrolman has been looking after the various local complaints with respect to any electrical disorder for quite a long time and he is fully experienced and trained person. The alleged electrical accident was not at all result of the current. The persons died due to this accident were not at all victim of electrical current. They are said to have suffered burn injury which are caused on their body due to the hot oil which bursted out from the transformer and a fire took place and as such it comes under category of remoteness of damages. If these persons had not been near the transformer there would not have been any damage to their life. The deceased persons were acting negligently and carelessly while roaming around the transformer and as such they become victim. The Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to award the compensation in such an illegal and arbitrary manner.
The District Consumer Commission has categorically recorded the finding that the complainants informed about the accident to the nearest police station. The complainants' mother had died therefore funeral ceremony had to arrange. The father and brother were badly burnt and the complainant had to arrange the vehicle to send them to Medical College, Aligarh, therefore, there was no time to inform the sub station of the opposite parties. The complainants' parents and brother were working in their field not under the transformer but apart from there about twelve feet.
:6:The learned District Consumer Commission opined that the disorder transformer was made in order by the opposite parties' worker Sri Pratap Singh but he was not competent enough to know about mechanical defect.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, and after going through the material and evidence available on record and particularly the findings recorded by the learned District Consumer Commission, I am of the opinion that the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission is fully justified and is correct, as such need no interference and as such is liable to be upheld.
In view of the aforesaid the appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be dismissed. The appellants are directed to comply with the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission within 30 days from today by paying the decretal amount.
ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of the learned District Consumer Commission are confirmed. The appellants are directed to comply with the order passed by the learned District Consumer Commission within 30 days from today by paying the decretal amount.
The office is directed to issue the certified copy of this order to the parties within a week as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission today itself.
( JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR ) PRESIDENT Pnt.
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE PRESIDENT] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR] PRESIDENT