K.C. Gupta, President:
1. None is present on behalf of the respondent, although Sh. Ashwani Verma, Advocate had appeared on behalf of respondent on the last date of hearing. Hence, respondent is proceeded against ex parte.
2. There is a delay of 7 days in filing the appeal. An application accompanied by duly attested affidavit of Sh.V.K. Singla, Executive Engineer has been filed. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.
3. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent Sh. Bag Ram had taken on lease land measuring 16 canals situated in the revenue estate of Village Chankothi, Tehsil Ratia, District Fatehabad from Sh. Govind. The said land was having tubewell and the electric connection was in the name of Govind bearing No. JD/03. The respondent was using the tubewell of Govind to irrigate the land.
4. The over-hanging cable passed through the field of Govind. On 24.4.1998 there was a sparking from the cables as a result of loose cables due to which wheat crop of the respondent was burnt. Accordingly, he informed Police Station, Ratia where D.D.R No. 20 dated 26.4.1998 was recorded. He also reported the matter to Sub-Divisional Agriculture Officer, Fatehabad. The Agriculture Development Officer visited the spot and prepared the inspection report. According to him the wheat sown in Khasra Nos. 218/15-16 of HD-2329 variety was totally burnt and he assessed the loss of Rs. 27,400 on account of burning of the crop. Since, the crop was fully mature for harvesting so, after deducting the labour charges for harvesting to the tune of Rs. 2400, he assessed the net loss of Rs. 25,000.
5. The Halka Patwari had also visited the spot and assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 25,000 on account of burning of the wheat crop standing in two killas i.e. 15 and 16.
6. Alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of appellant, the complaint was filed.
7. The appellants contested the complaint. They denied the allegations of the respondent but admitted that electric cables passed through the land of Sh. Govind whose land was taken on lease by the respondent. They also took the plea that the respondent was not a consumer.
8. The parties adduced their evidence.
9. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (hereinafter to be referred as District Consumer Forum) vide order dated 6.11.2000 accepted the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs. 24,400 for burning of the wheat crop, besides Rs. 500 on account of costs of litigation and Rs. 500 as compensation for mental agony and harassment, etc. The payment was ordered to be made within two months, failing which the amounts were ordered to be paid with interest @ 12% p.a. till the date of payment.
10. Aggrieved by the said order, the OPs have filed the present appeal.
11. We have heard Mr. Sanjay Sharma, L.D.C. on behalf of appellants and carefully gone through the file.
12. The first point agitated before us is that Sh. Bag Ram was not the consumer of the appellants, since the tubewell connection stood in the name of Sh. Govind. In our opinion, the contention is not tenable as the respondent had taken on lease land measuring 16 kanals from Sh. Govind and he had sown wheat crop in that land and was utilizing the electricity connection granted to Sh. Govind on his tubewell bearing consumer No. JD/03, so he was beneficiary and as such comes under the definition of consumer of the appellants.
13. It is proved from the evidence of the Agriculture Development Officer, Ratta Khera who had visited the spot and prepared inspection report as well as from the report of the Halka Patwari that the crop of the respondent Sh. Bag Ram was burnt and there was a loss of Rs. 25,000.
14. They have also stated in their reports that the crop had been burnt due to a spark from the cables of the electricity, which took place at about 5 p.m. on 24.4.1998. Otherwise also, there is affidavit of Sh. Bag Ram on file that the fire had been caused due to the sparking from the cables of the electricity department. Sh. Gobind the landlord has also filed affidavit stating that he had given two acres of agricultural land comprised in Khewat No. 218//15/16 to Sh. Bag Ram S/o Sh. Sada Sukh, resident of village Tamaspura for cultivation and further he had been utilizing the electricity connection of the tubewell for irrigating the land. He next stated that electricity line of the electricity department was passing through the field, which was given on lease to Sh. Bag Ram. He also stated that on 24.4.1998 on account of loose cables of electricity, which were passing through his field, sparking took place and due to the sparking, wheat crop sown in two acres of land was burnt. He further stated that electricity cables were going from the main pole to his tubewell, which were loose in connection. In view of this evidence, the affidavit of Sh. A.K. Bansal, S.D.O. to the effect that wheat crop was not burnt due to the sparking of the electricity, as alleged, cannot be believed. Therefore, we hold that the wheat crop of the respondent was burnt due to the sparking, which had emanated from the loose cables over passing the fields in which the wheat crop was sown and due to the sparking, the wheat crop was burnt. There was a loss of Rs. 25,000 to the respondent, which the appellants are liable to pay. We concur with the reasoning given by the District Consumer Forum and hold that there is no force in the appeal and as such the same is dismissed.