Per Shri A.Z.Khwaja, Hon’ble Judicial Member.
1. Appellant Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd., has filed the present appeal feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30/11/2015 passed by the learned Additional District Consumer Commission, Nagpur in consumer complaint No.14/192, whereby the Consumer complaint filed by complainant came to be allowed. (The appellant and respondent shall be referred by their original nomenclature).
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the present complaint may be narrated as under. :-
3. Complainant Ganesh Bangadkar claims to be resident of Village Parsheoni, Tahasil Parsheoni, District Nagpur. Complainant has an agriculturist being owner of agriculture land bearing Survey No. 43/2 at Mouza-Dundakhairi. Complainant has irrigated his land on the basis of one electric motor installed on the well situated in his field. Complainant was claims to be a Consumer of electricity bearing Consumer No.422060004210. Complainant has alleged that the electric wires of the O.P. namely MSEDCL were passing through at over his field on 28/08/2014 in the morning between 10.00 am to 10.30 am complainant was taking his bullock by pandhan towards the field of one Deorao Rout. At that time his bullock suffered electric shock due to the wires which were lying in the field in broken condition and thereby his bullock died. Complainant then lodged the report in police station Parsheoni. Police then visited the spot of incident and prepared spot panchanama. Police also took photographs of the bullock on the spot. Police thereafter sent the bullock for post-mortem where he found bullock had died due to electric current. Complainant has alleged that the staff from O.P./MSEDCL did not at all visit and did not take care despite report being submitted and information being given to the O.P. Complainant has alleged that O.P. namely MSEDCL has indulged in deficiency in service and also Unfair Trade Practice due to which the complainant suffered loss of his bullock and also suffered mental and physical harassment. Complainant therefore filed the present complaint claiming compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards mental and physical harassment, Rs.40,000/- toward the loss of bullock and Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation and so the present complaint.
4) O.P. namely MSEDCL appeared and resisted the complaint by filing written version. O.P. has denied that the complainant Ganesh Bangadkar was a Consumer of electricity. At the out set O.P. has contended that the complaint filed by the complainant is not tenable in law. O.P. has further denied that the complainant lost his bullock due to electric supply by O.P. O.P. has further specifically contended that bullock had not died due to electric shock and therefore there was no question of grant of compensation to the complainant. O.P. has also denied that they have not visited the spot and not prepared the sport panchanama on the basis of same. O.P. has contended that the complaint filed by the complainant is not tenable in law and deserves to be dismissed with cost.
5) The learned Additional District Consumer Forum, Nagpur thereafter went through the contents of the complaint as well as the evidence adduced by the complainant and that of opposite party. The District Consumer Forum, Nagpur also went through the written notes of argument filed by both the parties. After appreciating the evidence adduced on record, the District Consumer Commission, Nagpur came to the conclusion that the death of the bullock had taken place due to wires lying in the field in a negligent manner. Learned Additional District Consumer Commission thereafter partly allowed the complaint and granted compensation of Rs.35,000/- towards loss of bullock and Rs.10,000/- towards mental and physical harassment as also Rs.3,000/- towards cost of litigation by passing judgment and order dated 30/11/2015. Against this judgment and order dated 30/11/2015 learned Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur has preferred the present appeal.
6) We have head Shri Rahate, learned advocate on behalf of appellant/O.P. and Shri Bhedre on behalf of respondent. We have also gone through the record, copies of which are placed on record.
7) At the out set it is submitted by Shri Rahate, learned advocate for the appellant that the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur has not properly appreciated the facts on record and therefore has arrived at finding which were erroneous in nature. Shri Rahate, learned advocate for appellant has submitted that Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur has not considered the fact that the respondent/complainant was not at all a consumer of electricity and moreover the death of the bullock as alleged by respondent had not taken place due to electric current, but these aspects were not considered by the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur. In order to substantiate this contention Shri Rahate, learned advocate for appellant has drawn our attention to certain documents including one copy of post-Morton report and also one copy of photographs relating to the electric meter. Shri Bhedre, learned advocate for the respondent has strongly rebutted these contentions and has pointed out that the respondent/complainant Ganesh Bhangadkar was not only an agriculturist but also the owner of agricultural land bearing survey No.43/2 at Mouza-Dundakhairi and copy of 7/12 extract regarding the same is also placed on record. Further, in order to rebut the contentions advanced by Shri Rahate learned advocate for the appellant, the respondent has also drawn our attention to certain other documents on record. However, we would like to deal with the contentions advanced by Shri Rahate, learned advocate for the appellant/MSEDCL which has come up in appeal. Shri Rahate, learned advocate for appellant has drawn our attention to one document namely copy of Form No.2 of MSEDCL Division No.2 Nagpur regarding the details of accident which admittedly took place on 28/08/2014. Before that it is necessary to mention that there is no serious dispute that the said incident had taken place on 28/08/2014. Shri Rahate, learned advocate for appellant has pointed out that in this document cause of death of the bullock is shown as doubtful. Further Shri Rahate, learned advocate for appellant has also drawn our attention to copy of photographs of the electric meter and we have gone through the same. On the other hand Shri Bhedre, learned advocate for respondent/complainant has specifically drawn our attention to one copy of letter issued by Live Stock Development Officer, Panchyat Samiti Parsheoni addressed to police inspector, police station Parsheoni. By this letter Live Stock Development Officer Panchayat Samiti, Parsheoni has mentioned specifically that the death of the bullock owned by Ganesh Bangadwar namely complainant had taken place due to electric current by live wires. From this document it became ample clear that the death of bullock in question had taken place due to electric current passing in the electric wires. If we go through the sport panchanama prepared by the office of MSEDCL itself shows that on the said date electric wire were passing through the field of the complainant/respondent was broken and was also lying in the field of the complainant without being attended properly. Learned advocate for respondent/complainant has placed on record the documents to show that after electric wire had fallen down he had lodged report also with the office of MSEDCL and therefore the office of MSEDCL was very much aware of this fact. Shri Bhedre learned advocate for respondent/complainant has drawn our attention to one copy of 7/12 extract which clearly reveals that the respondent/complainant was the owner of survey No.43/2 of Mouza-Dundakhairi. Further the respondent has also placed on record copy of one affidavit of one Rajkumar Uike who was an agriculturist and he has stated on affidavit that on 28/08/2014 he was present in the field and no one from the office of MSEDCL visited the spot where the electric wires were lying in a broken condition. From all these documents which are placed on record by the respondent/complainant it became crystal clear that the respondent/complainant was not only owner of agricultural land but was further also Consumer of electricity bearing Consumer No.422060004210 Respondent/complainant has also filed on record ample documents to show that on 28/08/2014 he had taken his bullock by Pandhan when the bullock came in contact with live electric wires leading to his death. We have also carefully gone through the judgment and order passed by the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur on 30/11/2015 and we find that the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur has dealt with all these aspects elaborately. Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur has also given the findings that bullock had died due to electric current. On going through the judgment and order passed by Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur dated 30/11/2015 we do not find any infirmity in the same.
8) During the course of the argument Shri Rahate, learned advocate for the appellant has also placed reliance upon the judgment as follows :-
- M.S.E.B……V/s……Shri Manohar Bapurao Lakde, delivered by State Consumer Commission, Circuit Bench Nagpur in First Appeal No.A/03/196 on 01/04/2015.
- M.S.E.D.C.L……V/s……Bhausaheb Dagduji Deshmukh, reported in II (2014) CPJ 81 (Maha.)
9) We have gone through the same. On the other hand, Shri Bhedre, learned advocate for respondent has relied upon the following judgment.;
i) Hari Prasad…V/s…. MU.H.B.V.N.L.Panchkula and Ors, reported in I (2010) CPJ 104 (NC).
ii) Life Insurance Corporation of India and others……V/s…..Pariapally Sujatha and others, reported in I (2010) CPJ 106 (NC).
iii) GOEL S.PAL…….V/s……Delhi Electricity Undertaking, reported in III (2006) CPJ 216.
Iv) Jagrut Nagrik and Others…….V/s……Shri Jalaram Hospital and others, reported in III (2006) CPJ 217.
10) On going through the judgment placed on record by the learned advocate for respondent we find that the same are squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.
11) In the light of the aforesaid discussions held by us, we find ourself unable to accept the contentions advanced by Shri Rahate, learned advocate for appellant that the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur has committed any error in giving findings or that the Additional District Consumer Commission Nagpur has not appreciated the facts on record in a proper manner. Accordingly we hold that appeal filed by the appellant/MSEDCL is devoid of any substance and so we proceed to pass the following order.
// ORDER //
i) Appeal is hereby dismissed
- Appellant to bear his own cost as well as cost of respondent.
- Copy of the order be furnished to both parties free of
cost.
