PER MR.JUSTIC A.P.BHANGALE, HON’BLE PRESIDENT
1. This appeal is preferred to challenge order dated 10-May-2005 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Consumer Forum, Yavatmal in Consumer Complaint No.7/2005 whereby complaint made by Shri Ashik Gopalrao Tyade was allowed and opposite parties/appellants herein were directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.56,000/- and interest on the said amount with effect from 07/01/2005 @ 6 % p.a. to the complainant until realization. Further more compensation for mental and physical harassment was allowed in the sum of Rs.5000/- and cost of the complaint in the sum of Rs.1000/-. If order regarding payments of compensation in the sum of Rs.56,000/- is not complied with within time of 30 days from the date of order in the complaint, further interest @ 9% p.a. on the sum of Rs.56,000/- was levied against opposite party has payable to the complainant.
2. Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted in view of the ruling decided by Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Channai, in Assistant Engineer Electricity Board ….V/s….V.Raja, reported in III (2004) CPJ 8645. According to learned Advocate for appellant, in the case sudden snapping of high tension over head wires it resulted in fire destroyed sugarcane crops. It was held that the liability is tortuous ought not to be adjudicate by Consumer Court because of remedy before Civil Court.
3. Another ruling Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co….V/s….Shri Babulal Kuberchand Gandhi etc. which was decided by this Commission in first appeal No.227/2007 where by the complainant was not held as consumer when electric lines were passing through the land of the complainant and the complainant had taken an electric connection. The facts and circumstances of that case, that there were nine agricultural connection to supply electric energy to the various water pump for irrigation of and the accident that occurred in summer session when mulching was carried out in the garden. Electric line through the block No.238 and 239 was supplied to nine agricultural water pumps for to irrigate the land.
4. According to learned Advocate for respondent /complainant both their ruling cited on behalf of the appellant where in facts and circumstances of those respective cases. While in the present case the complainant had obtained loan from Allahabad Bank and money lenders and Co-operative Bank etc. and obtained supply from the appellant to irrigate orange, cotton and vegetable crops through electricity water pump. In the present case Taluka Agricultural Officer, Ralegaon also submitted his report indicating that in the agricultural field of the complainant there was fire, as a result of broken electric wire going overhead of the agricultural land of the complainant from which electricity supply was given to the water pump irrigating the land belonging to the complainant. It is under these circumstances contended that all these relevant facts were considered in details by learned Consumer District Disputes Redressal Forum, Yavatmal. Importantly it was noted that in the agricultural land there was lower tension lines which was broken and caused fire to standing crops on 13/01/2004 for which even opposite party Executive Engineer of the appellant made report after visiting the site that is included in panchanama drawn by Ralegaon Police Station, that the wire between pole No.4 and 5 was broken resulting the touching of the sugar cane crops and fire was sparked because of broken wire resulting burnt crops of around 5 and half acres.
5. We have perused impugned judgement and award, the learned forum did considered the written complaint dated 07/01/2004 made by complainant and also the complaint made by one Shri Uttarwar, villager dated 02/01/2004 who informed Assistant Engineer of the appellant. The complaint remained unheeded. The learned Forum considered that agriculture as profession was carried out by the complainant to earn his livelihood and it was not commercial activity. Wire which was broken causing fire within limits of agriculture land of the complainant was a lower tension wire from which electric supply was supplied to the water pump for irrigation of crops in agricultur land belonging to the complainant. It is under these circumstance rulings cited on behalf of the appellant were distinguishable on facts particularly when poor agriculturist having obtained huge crop loan from different sources and is personally cultivating the land with the aid of electricity run water pump for to irrigate the land suffered due to lapses on the part of appellant who were dutybound of to safely and properly maintain low tension electric wire going over head through the agricultural land belonging to the complainant. When complainant himself was a consumer using electricity supplied from the said low tension wire line, it can not be said that there was no consumer dispute. When repeated complaints were made claiming compensation on account of fire incident resulting loss to the tune of Rs.57,000/- because of burnt sugarcane crops which weighted about 100 Metric Tone. The copies of the above Annexed alongwith complaint to support this case of the complaint. The learned Forum also took care to discuss the facts in details by reasons of judgement before passing the award infavour of the complainant to compensate the complainant by just and reasonable award which can not be considered as exorbitant or excessive. Therefore, considering that there was defective service for want of just and proper maintenance of low tension wire going overhead in the agricultural land belonging to the complainant and leakage of one such wire resulting in sparking and fire spreding in the agriculture field of the complainant causing damage to the sugarcane crops standing. Considering all these circumstances, the award was well supported by the reasons. There is no valid ground to interfere with the same. That being so, we confirm the award, dismissing appeal with cost. Cost is sum of Rs.10,000/- awarded is payable by the appellant to the respondent.
