CHAIRMAN P S E B Vs. MOHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals, namely, Appeal Nos.1387 of 2000, 3 and 4 of 2001 are being decided together as they arise out of the same order and same question of law and facts are involved therein. Facts are being taken from appeal No.1387 of 2000.

(2.) It is an appeal against the order dated 18.10.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurdaspur (hereinafter called the District Forum) vide which the District Forum has decided the following three complaints : (i) Complaint No.303 of 2000, Smt. Mohinder Kaur V/s. Chairman, PSEB and Ors. (ii) Complaint No.301 of 2000, Sh. Gurdip Singh and Anr. V/s. Chairman, PSEB and Ors. (iii) Complaint No.302 of 2000, Sh. Surjit Singh V/s. Chairman, PSEB and Ors.

(3.) It has been alleged by the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) that she was an agriculturist having 3 Horse Power tubewell electric connection A/c No. C3-442, installed in her field in the revenue estate of village Talwandi, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur. This tubewell of hers was joint with one Gurdip Singh. She had been receiving electric supply to her tubewell connection from the Dhirta Singh Wala Transformer installed in the revenue estate of village Talwandi, Tehsil and District Gurdaspur and, thus, she was availing services of the appellant-opposite parties (hereinafter called the opposite parties) and was their consumer. It was further alleged in the complaint that on 12.4.1999, due to negligence of respondent No.3- opposite party No.3 (hereinafter called opposite party No.3) i. e. , SDO/assistant Executive Engineer of PSEB, Sub-Division Tibbar, the standing wheat crop of the complainant in the land measuring 20 kanals area was destroyed by fire due to sparking of the aforesaid transformer and she had suffered a loss of Rs.25,000/-. She gave information of this loss to opposite party No.3 and also lodged DDR No.26 dated 12.4.1999 at Police Station Dhariwal. After that the Chief Electrical Officer (sic. Chief Electrical Inspector), Patiala visited the spot and recorded her statement relating to this incident. Thereafter, opposite party No.3, wrote memo dated 30.9.1999 to her and demanded from her the actual loss/estimate through the Revenue Department. She submitted this estimate of loss to opposite party No.3 and after that she contacted the opposite parties and requested them to reimburse the loss. She also served a legal notice dated 15.5.2000 on them. But it elicited no response from them. Hence the complaint before the District Forum.