Back
MADHYA PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL
Honble Mr. Justice G.G. Sohani, President;
Mr. Murarilal Tiwari and Mrs. Saroj Rajwade, Members
RAJNI BHATNAGAR—Appellant
versus
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GWALIOR
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY—Respondent
Appeal No. 408 of 1994—Decided on 3.4.1995
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. Raj Kumar Bansal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Mohan Chouksey, Advocate.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 and 14 - Deficiency in service - High tension wire over the plot caused an accident causing damage to house of complainant - Claim for damages as line was not got shifted despite several requests - No evidence or material to show that over head line was laid down by Electricity Board contrary to provisions or that opponent failed to take steps required under provisions of any law or agreement Complainant can not be said to have established negligence. (Para 3)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Mr. Justice G.G. Sohani, President — This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.10.94 passed by the District Forum, Gwalior in Case No.482/92.
2. The facts giving rise to this appeal briefly are as follows:—
The complainant had taken on lease a plot from a co-operative society of which the complainant was a member. The said plot was allotted to the society by the opponent-Development Authority. The complainant constructed a house on the said plot. The case of the complainant was that a high tension line erected by the M.P. Electricity Board over the said plot was not got shifted by the opponent despite several requests made in that behalf and ultimately it resulted in an accident causing damage to the house and serious injuries to her brother. The complainant therefore claimed damages from the opponent-Development Authority. The District Forum held that the complainant had failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opponent and hence the complainant was not entitled to any relief. The complaint was accordingly dismissed. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant has filed this appeal.
3. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties we have coffie to the conclusion that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the complainant was unable to point out as to how the opponent could be held responsible for the accident alleged to have taken place by the over-head line laid by the M.P. Electricity Board. The complainant has not brought on record any material to show that the over-head line was laid down by the Electricity Board contrary to the provisions made in that behalf and that the opponent failed to take steps which the opponent was required to take under the provisions of any law or under any agreement entered into with the complainant. The complainant failed to establish any negligence on the part of the opponent. As the complainant failed to make out any case of deficiency in service on the part of the opponent-Development Authority, the District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint. We see no cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
__
