AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD Vs. BHAGWANA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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(sic) the petitioners but they did not take steps to rectify or remedy the situation. According to the complainants, on 22.4.2009 the wires of (sic) 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 suffere(sic) a loss of Rs. 72,000 which the petitioners decline 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 (sic) terms of the following relief:

(2.) 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 (sic)ut no proper conclusion can be drawn at Tehsildar's report which itself was based on (sic)earsay. 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 (sic)ave any power to give report regarding the (sic)ause of fire. He further submitted that there (sic)re contradictions in the three reports placed at (sic)ges 31 to 33 of the paper book. On the other and, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the incident of fire is not in (sic)spute 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 (sic)th the Fora below have returned their (sic)ncurrent finding in favour of the complainants (sic)sed on facts. The contradictions now being inted out by the petitioners were not pointed thefore the District Forum by the petitioners. We have considered the submissions of (sic) parties and perused the record. The (sic)current findings of both the Fora below in (sic)our of the complainants / respondents are (sic)ically finding of facts. We do not find any (sic)gality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in (sic)m. We, therefore, do not see any reason to (sic)rfere with the impugned order and hence dismiss the revision petition with no order as to costs.