Suresh Chandra, Member:— Briefly stated, the facts as per the complainants are that ancestors of the complainants who are respondents herein had taken an agriculture connection from the petitioner-company and the wires of the said connection being loose, the complainants complained about the same to the petitioners but they did not take steps to rectify or remedy the situation. According to the complainants, on 22.04.2009 the wires of LT line broke and fell on the thatched roof of the jhuggi of the complainants due to which all the articles and clothes kept inside got burnt and goats died. The complainants thereby suffered a loss of Rs. 72000/- which the petitioners declined to pay. A consumer complaint, therefore, was filed by the complainants/respondents with the District Forum which was accepted by the District Forum vide order dated 18.11.2009 in terms of the following relief:
“Therefore, it is ordered that opposite party shall pay to the complainant Bhagwanaram Rs. 17000, Ranjit Rs. 18000/- and Narainlal Rs. 15000/- within two months. In case the said sum is not paid within two months to the complainant, then an interest @ 9% p.a shall be payable”.
2. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the petitioners filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, the ‘State Commission’). The State Commission vide its order dated 15.07.2010 dismissed the appeal of the petitioners in liminie and upheld the order of the District Forum and hence the petitioners have approached this Commission challenging the impugned order through the present revision petition.
3. We have heard Mr. Shyam Moorjani, Advocate, for the petitioners and Mr. Kishore Singhmeet, Authorised Representative of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the fora below have granted relief in favour of the respondents mainly on the basis of the report of the Tehsildar but no proper conclusion can be drawn at Tehsildar's report which itself was based on hearsay. Learned counsel pointed out that according to the site map shown at page 11 of the paper book, the fire in question could not have taken place. Another contention raised by learned counsel was that Tehsildar does not have any power to give report regarding the cause of fire. He further submitted that there are contradictions in the three reports placed at pages 31 to 33 of the paper book. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the incident of fire is not in dispute and the Tehsildar as an important field authority has every power to visit the spot and submit a report based on the local inquiry conducted by him. He further submitted that both the fora below have returned their concurrent finding in favour of the complainants based on facts. The contradictions now being pointed out by the petitioners were not pointed out before the District Forum by the petitioners.
4. We have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record. The concurrent findings of both the fora below in favour of the complainants/respondents are basically finding of facts. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in them. We, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order and hence dismiss the revision petition with no order as to costs.
Comments