Uttarakhand Power Corporation Limited vs Munfait Ali Khan

Dr Inder Jit Singh, Member

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 20.10.2016 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttarakhand, Dehradun, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 11 of 2011 in which order dated 08.12.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haridwar (hereinafter referred to as District Commission) in Consumer Complaint (CC) no. 145 of 2009 was challenged, inter alia praying to set aside the order of State Consumer dated 20.10.2016 and order of District Forum dated 08.12.2010.

While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Petitioner/OP) was Appellant and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent in the said FA 11/2011 before the State Commission the Revision Petitioner was OP and Respondent was Complainant before the District Commission in the CC no 145 of 2009.  Notice was issued to the Respondent on 20.03.2017.  Parties filed Written Arguments/Synopsis on 14.02.2022 (Petitioner/OP) and 18.12.2018 (Respondent/Complainant) respectively.

Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:-

The complainant's deceased father had obtained a 7.5 HP electricity connection for his tube well from the electricity department. A 11000-kilowatt electricity line ran across the complainant's agricultural field, positioned above the line supplying electricity to the tube well. Despite repeated requests, the department failed to remove the 11000-kilowatt electricity line. On 19.04.2009 at around 7:00 p.m., the 11000-kilowatt line fell, causing a fire and damaging the tube well instruments, approximately 40 quintals of wheat, and the standing crop in the field. The electricity department denied any compensation, leading the complainant to approach the District Commission. On 08.12.10, the District Commission ruled in favour of the complainant, awarding    Rs. 150,000/- as compensation. The State Commission, on 20.10.2016, upheld the District Commission's order in the appeal. Now, the Petitioner has filed present Revision Petition with the National Commission, seeking to overturn the State Commission's decision and set aside the compensation awarded by the District Forum.

Heard counsels of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

4.1.  The counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant should be considered a consumer under the consumer protection act because the electricity connection was in the name of the complainant's deceased father, and the complainant has been using electricity and paying the electricity charges as per the bills issued by the department. The complainant has provided a letter addressed to the officer of the respondent, which states that the crops of wheat were burnt and damage was caused to the tube-well due to the breaking of the high tension wire. The complainant has also submitted bills, passbooks, payment receipts, and other relevant documents, which provide complete information about the tube-well connection, including the connection number 1156.

4.2 The OP's counsel argued that the complainant's name was not officially registered on the electricity connection and there is no evidence of payment or ownership. It was stated that the complainant received electricity from service lines, not the alleged faulty transmission lines. The complaint is vague and fabricated, lacking legally acceptable supporting documents. There is no record of the complainant's request to the fire department or any call records to substantiate their claims. The statement from a fireman, dated one year after the incident, is unsupported by official records. The complainant contradicted himself by stating in the complaint and evidence that the fire could only be controlled after the fire brigade arrived, whereas the fireman stated that they did not reach the spot. The affidavit of Mr. Israr, a neighbour of the complainant, stating that an application for compensation was made to the SDM and Executive Engineer, is not supported by any document placed on record. There is no concrete proof of the tube-well's destruction, only a purchase invoice issued after more than a month of the alleged incident. The replacement of the tube-well does not automatically implicate the UPCL (Uttarakhand Power Corporation Ltd.) without establishing a causal relationship between the incident and the loss.

The grounds raised by the Petitioner in the Revision Petition for challenging the order of the State Commission were raised before both the District Forum and State Commission, who have adequately and correctly addressed such contentions raised by the Petitioner while coming to finding that the Petitioner is liable for the loss caused to the Respondent.  As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269] that the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577]  held that “the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.”

On carefully going through the impugned order of State Commission, District Forum and all other relevant records, we find that both State Commission and District Forum have given a well reasoned order and we find no illegality or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission or District Forum calling for any intervention by this Commission at Revision stage.  There is no merit in the contention of Petitioner that Respondent is not a Consumer.  Both the State Commission and District Forum after consider the available records and evidence before them, have come to a concurrent finding on the fact of incident and loss to the Respondent.  District Forum, after considering the facts and evidence before it, has assessed the loss as Rs.1.50 lakhs as against Rs.2.50 lakh claimed by the Respondent and State Commission has confirmed such findings. State Commission has clearly and rightly observed that the electricity department cannot absolve from its liability by merely saying that maintenance of H.T. line is the job of the transmission wing of the electricity department, and that transmission wing is also that of electricity department.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, we uphold the order of the State Commission and District Forum.  Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by Petitioner to Respondent within two months of this order.

The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.