AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.K.Jain, Presiding Member
The complainants are farmers who had taken electricity connection from the petitioner for the purpose of irrigating their fields. One connection had been taken in the name of the deceased father of the complainants and was being used by them whereas the other one had been taken in the name of complainant no.2. A transformer had been installed by the petitioner in the adjoining field and electricity was being supplied to the complainants through that transformer. There was an incident of tripping on earth fault on 13.04.2016 as a result of which, the jumper of blue phase of the tower of 66 K.V. line through which electricity was being provided, came out and fell on the heap of wheat crop which the complainants had placed in their field. The matter was reported to the petitioner corporation and a team was constituted to inspect the spot. The Committee consisting of three Assistant Inspecting Engineers, inspected the spot on 20.04.2016 and reported as under:
On dt. 20.04.2016, the Committee visited the site caught in fire, from the observation it was found that three spots/marks of fire incident were there below the Tower No.84 of 66 K.V. Sunam, Mangwal Line the marks of Fields caught in fire. From the inspection it was found that during the fire caught, at some area there were marks of wheat and in some area there were marks of remaining Naad (crop remaining content). Three spots below the tower of fire incident happened, which were found; From that it has found that the small stocks/heaps of wheat after cutting were placed below the tower and its nearby places.
In this regard the statements of A.E./T.L. and J.E./T.L. were recorded (copy enclosed). A.E./T.L. stated that on dt. 13.04.2016 at about 16:35, he was told by S.S.O. of concerned Grid that the line has been tripped on Earth Fault and during the patrolling, when he arrived at the place of fire incident occurred at 18:20 along with staff, then saw that the Jumper of Blue Phase of Tower No.84 has come out from the End Cone. The video recorded by A.E./T.L. at that time on the spot was also shown and it wa told that the fire extended further after burning the wheat stocks placed below the tower. It was also told by him that the fire caught by the stocks and the standing wheat/Naad (remaining content after cutting wheat) had become ended at that time. A.E./T.L. and J.E./T.L. told that they made the scheduled maintenance of line on dt. 23.12.2015 (PTW No.57) and on dt. 16.04.2016 the schedule was approved for re-maintenance.
The tower might have caught fire due to sparkling caused at the time of Jumper Breakage from Tower of 66 K.V. Line.But if the farmer might not stock the wheat after cutting below the tower by complying with the directions instructions of PSPCL, then perhaps this fire accident might not happened.
No negligence of any officer/employees of PSPCL has come before for such fire accident happened.
Since no compensation was paid to the complainants for the loss of their crop, they approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint seeking compensation from the petitioner Corporation.
The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which took a preliminary objection that the complainants were not consumers of the Corporation. On merits, it was inter-alia stated in the reply filed by the petitioner Corporation that there was no negligence on its part in maintaining the 66 K.V. line.
The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainants, the petitioner Corporation approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Since there was a delay of one year in filing the appeal, the petitioner also filed an application for seeking condonation of delay. Vide impugned order dated 18.07.2019, the State Commission dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay and consequently, the appeal came to be dismissed as barred by limitation. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this Revision Petition.
During the course of arguments, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in Punjab, power to the farmers for agricultural purposes, is supplied free of cost and therefore, the complainants cannot be said to be the consumers, they having not paid any consideration to the Corporation. I however, find no merit in the contention. The petitioner Corporation which is engaged in the business of distributing and supplying electricity to consumers across various categories, charges from the consumers other than the farmers consuming electricity for agricultural purposes. The consumers other than the farmers using electricity for agricultural purposes, are subsidizing the cost incurred by the petitioner Corporation in supplying free electricity to the farmers for agricultural purposes. Therefore, the consideration to the petitioner Corporation for the purpose of supplying free electricity to the farmers is paid by those consumers from whom electricity charges are being recovered by the Corporation. A guidance in this regard may be taken from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 651 wherein the context of medical negligence in respect of a patient who is not charged in a hospital, the Hon'ble Supreme Court inter-alia held as under:
"55. On the basis of the above discussion, we arrive at the following conclusion:
(8) Service rendered at a non-government hospital/nursing home where charges are required to be paid by persons who are in position to pay and persons who cannot afford to pay are rendered service free of charge would fall within the ambit of the expression 'service' as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act irrespective of the fact that the service is rendered free of charge to persons who are not in a position to pay for such services. Free service, would also be 'service' and the recipient a 'consumer' under the Act.
I therefore, find myself unable to accept the contention that the complainants cannot be said to be the consumers of the petitioner Corporation despite the fact that the electricity to them was being supplied through the transformer, installed in the adjoining field.
It is next contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in maintenance of the 66 K.V. line and in order to avoid such incident of fire in the field, they had issued a Public Notice advising the general public not to keep anything under the electricity pole etc. The above referred advice to the general public however, would not absolve the petitioner Corporation from the consequences of any negligence on the part of its officials in maintenance of the electrical wires, poles and lines. In the absence of any particular cause, the very fact that there was a spark from the high tension 66 K.V. line passing through the field of the complainants, indicates that the said 66 K.V. line was not being properly maintained. Had the line been properly maintained, the spark would not have generated from the said 66 K.V. line and would not have damaged the crop of the complainants. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that they have filed the record showing due maintenance of the line spark from which had destroyed the crop of the complainants, to prove that there was no negligence in the maintenance of the said line. I have carefully perused the inspection report and the written version filed by the petitioner Corporation. Neither the report nor the written version gives any explanation as to why there was a spark from the line, if it was being duly maintained. It is the petitioner Corporation which knows the cause of the spark. Hence, it was for them to come out with that cause, if poor maintenance of the 66 K.V. line was not the cause of the spark. Therefore, I am not able to accept the contention that there was no negligence on the part of the officials of the petitioner Corporation in maintaining the electric lines which was passing through the field of the complainants.
As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, even the petitioner is not disputing the assessment made by the District Forum which in any case, is quite conservative and therefore, does not call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
For the reasons stated hereinabove, I hold that the petitioner Corporation has no case on merit. Therefore, I need not go into the question as to whether the petitioner has shown sufficient cause for condonation of delay of more than one year in filing the appeal before the State Commission. The Revision Petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.