Karnataka

Bidar

CC/34/2013

Bharat S/o Narsing rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

GESCOM BIDAR - Opp.Party(s)

P M DESHPANDE

26 Aug 2016

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                          C.C.No. 34/2013

 

                                                                                             Date of filing : 20/07/2013

 

                                                                                          Date of disposal : 26/08/2016

 

 

P R E S E N T:-              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                         (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                      B.A.LL.B.

                                                                                  Member.

 

                                   

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT/S:        Bharat S/o Narsingrao Wagmare

                                            Age:35 years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                           R/o Village Kalasdal

        Tq: Bhalki, District: Bidar.

              

 

 

                                

 (By Sri P.M.Deshpande., Advocate )

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-     1.   The Executive Engineer,

      GESCOM, Bidar-585401.

 

2.    The Asst.Executive Engineer,

       GESCOM, Bhalki-585328                                                         

 ( R1. By R.K.Ganure. Advocate and R2. Exparte. )                               

 

 

 

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

              The complainant has approached this Forum u/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986, claiming himself to be consumer vis-à-vis, the opponents seeking relief alleging deficiency of service praying as hereunder:

 

2.          That, the complainant is an agriculturist, small farmer, holding land to the extent of Ac.3.12guntas in Sy.No.29/1 in village Kalasdal, Tq- Bhalki.  A H.T. electricity line maintained by the opponents runs through his field and the transmission line was never being inspected or supervised by the opponent.  On 19.04.2013, a live wire of the H.T. line snapped, fell on the land of the complainant and the sparks from the line was causative factor of fire and the entire crops in the land was completely burnt  down to ashes.  The complainant immediately informed the revenue officials and fire brigade personnel.  The later, arrived with the tanker and machineries and tried to douse the fire in vain and the entire crops could not escape the ravage of the Fire.  The Brigade got registered the case vide F.A. No.93/2013 and has issued a certificate to that effect.  The complainant assesses his loss to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation, cost, damages etc. and seeks relief to that extent and other relief(s).

 

3.   The opponent on notice appeared through counsel and have filed   versions, the gist of which is here in after extracted.

 

      a.    That, the complaint is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

 

      b.   That, the complainant is not a consumer, does not have electrical connection, not having any R.R. number, has filed a false case and the same be dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-

 

      c.   The court has been urged to consider the points (i) is the petitioner is  a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(0) r/w section 11 of the C.P.Act. and (ii) Does this court has the power to entertain the present case?

 

      d.  Whether the complainant is entitled for damages as claimed? The Civil Court only is having the jurisdiction to entertain the case and not the consumer forum.  In the alternative, as per the new powers given by the Govt. of Karnataka, the Tahasildar or the  Dy commissioner have been    empowered to grant relief(s) for natural calamities, (Sic),.No such notification has been produced by the opponent. 

      e.  The complainant had not informed about the electrical accident to the opponents as provided for u/s 116 of the electricity Act.2003.

 

     f.  The consumer has not informed the Electrical Inspectorate about the accident as required u/s 33 of Electricity Act, 1910. 

 

    g.   At the cost of repetition, the averments of para-1 of the complaint has been denied, disputing the land holding or the locus of the complainant as consumer.  The case law of the Hon,ble Apex Court in 2013 AIAR(Civil) 750 has been quoted without submitting any copy thereof.

 

    h. All other averments were denied on the pretext that, no F.I.R. or charge sheet was ever filed against the officers of the opponents and thereby the dismissal of the case is sought for.

 

4.      At the behest of the opponents, vide their I.A. under order XXVI Rule 10 this court had appointed Sri. D.M.Swamy, Advocate as Court Commissioner to conduct a spot inspection and report back, apropos to the Commissioners warrants filed on 05.04.2014.  The commissioner had filed his report on 21.06.2014, as revealed from the records, which was challenged by the complainant.

 

5.   Herein, the commissioner’s report is extracted in detail.   

            (1)     There is no any Electric Connection, to any IP. Set.

(2)      There is no IP Set In the land of complainant.

(3)    There is not any Electric poles, and HT lines or LT line in the
           land of complainant but there is a extra HT 110 K.V. line
           passed over the land of complaint and which is passed from
          Raichur power station to Bhalki to Saratpur.

(4)    There is no any Electric Poles of HT line or LT line in the land
                     of complaint.

(5)     There is no any poles of HT lines or LT lines is not available
                         in the land of complaint.

(6)      There are no any Electric poles in the surrounded lands.

(7)      There is no any Electric poles available in the others land.

 

6.  Filing a protest, the complainant was permitted to cross examine the commissioner and the depositions of the commissioner are as follows:-

 

        “I don’t remember the date on which I visited the spot. I conducted inspection in village Kalasdal, Tq. Bhalki in the land of one Bharath.  I don’t remember the Sy. No. of the land.  It is true that, H.T. line live wire was passing over the land of Bharath.  At the time of me visiting the spot, I did not see the over head wire(s) were running in a loosen state.  They were perfectly aligned”.

 

7.  While in the report, the commissioner reports about a 110 K.V. electrical transmission line passing thru the complainants’ land from Raichur to Bhalki and beyond to Saratpur, in the cross examination, he feigns ignorance of the date of inspection, the Sy. No. of the land and affirms that, H.T. line was passing thru the complainants’ land.  The commissioners report and testimony in the cross examination being replete with approbations and reprobation’s we have no choice but to discard it as a whole as in consistent and perfunctory.  Resultantly, we have to rely on the photographs submitted by the complainant and the report of the fire brigade.

 

8.  In the instant case, the complainant has submitted documentary proof(s) as detailed at the end of this order.  Both sides have filed their respective evidence affidavits reiterating their respective stands.

               Both sides have been heard extensively.

 

              Considering the claims and rival claims of the parties herein we fix the     following points for our considerations.

 

              a. Whether or not, the complainant is a consumer of the
                     opponents?

 

              b. Whether or not, the complainant is entitled for any relief?

              c. What order?

Our answers to the points are as follows:-

1. In the affirmative.
2. In the affirmative.
3. As per final orders owing to the following :-        

 

 

 

 

REASONS.

 

              The points in (a) and (b) being inter-wined, we propose to answer it together.

              The complainant, a rustic villager is before us claiming compensation, to which the opponents have challenged his locus, stating that, he has not obtained any electrical connection, nor he has furnished the R..R. number nor any proof of his land holding.  He has not established any tortuious damages, not filing F.I.R. and the claim has been denied, To consider the claim and its denial, we have before us, the following judgements of the Hon’ble National Commission.

1. IV (2008) CPJ 139 (NC)

C.G.M., 180 NPDCL and ors V/s Koppu  Duddarajam  Another

(Ratio- Villagers pay taxes to village Panchayath and power consumption charges to electricity co.  Hence they are consumers.

2. 2009 CTJ(CP) NCRDC with III (2010) C.P.J. 198(NC)

(Ratio) Electric Co.s transmitting energy, duty bound to maintain and ensure safety and security of persons, animals and other objects and when exposed wires cause damages, the service providers to compensate losses.

3. We may further infer here that, the opponent is a state instrumentality, created to provide electrical power to the citizenry at large.  Keeping that parlance affront, it can be safely concluded, each and every citizen of the country is a defacto consumer of the opponents.
4. Considering the ratio decidendi quoted supra, we answer both points (a) and (b) in affirmative

 

As far as the points (c) are concerned, the complainant has never disclosed in the complaint about the crops raised in his land.  In the legal notice, served upon the opponents he has claimed to have raised soya bean crops and its total destruction due to electrical fire.  We have no option but to receive the averments with a pinch of salt, but again, we cannot completely ignore the F.A. report by the statutory authorities and the color photographs (undisputed) submitted by the complainant.  In the four photos, we see mounds of ashes of the burnt crop and the efforts of the fire brigade in dousing the fire.  No official assessment of the crop loss has been filed by the complainant so far and hence we reasonably conclude the crop loss as a preponderance of probabilities at  a value of Rs. 1,25,000/- and proceed to pass the following :-

ORDERS

 

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opponents are directed to reimburse a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- with an interest @ 12% P.a.to the complainant, calculated from the date of fire accident till realisation.

The opponents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/-  as litigation expenses to the complainant.

Four weeks time granted to comply this order.

 

 

 

 

                 Sd/-                                                                     Sd/-

  Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                   

Member.                                                                President.                                                                  

 

 

 

 

        Documents relied upon by the parties, complainant

1. Ex.P.1- Fire accident report by fire brigade. 
2. Ex.P.2 to P5- Color photos of scene of occurrence.
3. Ex.P.6- R.T.E. extract of the land of complainant.
4. Ex.P.7- Copy of legal notice with courier receipts.

 

Documents produced by the Opponent

                                 Nil

 

 

                 Sd/-                                                                     Sd/-

  Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                   

                  Member.                                                                President.