Reserved

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

U.P. Lucknow.

Appeal  No.1483 of  2005

UPPCL through Executive Engineer –

Electricity Distribution Division, Mahoba,

District,  Mahoba.                                                …Appellant.                                                                         

Neeraj Kumar Srivastava S/o Shri Vijay Bahadur

Srivastava R/o Mohalla Qaudipura, City &

District  Mahoba.                                             …Respondent.

Present:-

1- Hon’ble Sri Rajendra  Singh, Presiding Member.

2- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.

Sri  Deepak  Mehrotra, Advocate for appellant.

None for Respondent.

Date  14.3.2022

JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rajendra Singh, Member: This appeal has been filed under Section 15 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986, by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 12.08.2005 passed by Learned District Consumer Forum, Mahoba in Complaint Case no.6 of 2002, Neeraj Kumar Srivastava Vs UPPCL.

The brief facts of the appeal are that, that the impugned judgment is illegal, unjust and arbitrary. The impugned judgment is based upon the incorrect interpretations and wrong conclusions which were drawn with a biased mind by the learned Forum. The disputes raised by the complainant was not at all a consumer dispute. The electric connection installed at the complainant’s home does not entitled him for getting the facility of power supply/services of UPPCL at all the places outside and other than his house. No consideration was paid by the complainant. The alleged accident was

(2)

taken place at a remote place by high tension line, the claim arising out of such an accident is entertainable under the provisions of Fatal Accident Act. The report of enquiry/inspection prepared by Tehsildar /District Magistrate is good for nothing and is unbelievable piece of evidence. The learned District Forum did not consider the fact as to what has resulted in breaking and falling of high tension wires, since when the high tension line had been passing over the area/place where the accident occurred, who was the owner of plot number 1698, how 21 complainants keep their crops at that plot which did not belong to him et cetera.

The report prepared by the administration  is not based upon any analysis of evidence or material. The learned Forum has wrongly entertained a highly time part complainant. The explanation of delay is given by the complainant after the final hearing of the case. The statement made by the complainant that this fire was controlled by Fire Brigade is absolutely false. Neither the copy of Fire Brigade report is filed by the complainant, not learned District Forum tried to call for it. Hence it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to set aside the judgment and order dated 12 August 2005 and allow the appeal.

We have heard the counsel for the appellant Sri Deepak Mehrotra. None for the respondent. We have perused pleadings, evidence and documents available on record.

 First we have seen the report of District Administration which shows the loss as Rs.156,725/– no compensation has been awarded by the District Administration. We have also seen the impugned judgment. The learned District Forum has

(3)

discussed all the facts in length and also considered the case laws and after considering all the facts passed the impugned order. In villages there are common  Khalihan  where all the or many of the villagers keep their cro