(Passed on 06.03.2013)
Per Mr S M Shembole, Hon’ble Presiding Member
This appeal is directed against the judgement & order dtd. 04.10.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal, allowing Consumer Complaint No.CC/98/330 directing the appellant / o.psNo.1 to pay to the complainant compensation Rs.20,000/- and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of proceedings, etc.
(For the sake of brevity the appellant are herein referred as “the o.ps” and respondent as “the complainant”.)
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that :-
1. Complainant Smt Halima Bee, who died pending the appeal, was the owner of field Gat No.39 admeasuring 2 hectares of Village Nagpar, Tal. Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal. In the year 1996 she had obtained electric connection bearing consumer No. AG 5969 from the o.ps. in her field and installed electric motor pump on the well in her filed. Thereafter, she had planted sugarcane in her field admeasuring 40 R. However, no electric supply was provided regularly by the o.ps and thereby, she put to loss. It is alleged that due to negligence on the part of o.ps there was no regular electric supply and therefore, the o.p is liable to pay her compensation It is alleged that there was no regular electric supply during the period from 1996 to 1998 and during these three years period the complainant sustained loss at Rs.1.00 Lac and the o.ps are liable to pay the same, etc. Therefore, on 15.05.1998 the complainant issued legal notice to the o.ps, claiming compensation. But the o.ps denied her claim. Hence, she filed Consumer Complaint, claiming compensation at Rs.1.00 Lac, alleging deficiency in service on the part of o.ps
2. The o.ps resisted the complaint by its Written Version. It did not dispute that the complainant was its consumer. However, it has denied specifically that there was no regular electric supply and therefore, the complainant sustained loss. It has denied other allegations made by the complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.
3. On hearing both the sides and considering the evidence on record, the Forum held that the employees of the o.ps were negligent in maintaining the electric line and D.P. from which the electric supply was given to the field of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant sustained the loss, damaging sugarcane crop. In keeping with this finding the forum partly allowed the complainants’ claim and directed the o.p.No.1 to pay to the complainant compensation Rs.20,000/- and Rs.1,000/- more towards compensation.
4. Feeing aggrieved by the judgement & order the ops have preferred this appeal.
5. We heard Ld. Counsel for the both the sides, perused their Written Notes of Arguments, impugned judgement & order, copies of complaint, Written Version, 7/12 Extract of the filed of the complainant and also the record of sugar factory.
6. The undisputed facts are that complainant – Late Halima Bee was the owner of the field, admeasuring 2 hectares and in the year 1995-1996 she had obtained electric connection in her field for the use of irrigation of her field. It is also not disputed that in the year 1997 sugarcane crop was grown by in her field. However, it is disputed that she had grown sugarcane in the year 1999. It is also denied by o.ps that sugarcane was grown in the year 1996-97 and 1997-98.
7. The crux in this matter as to whether there was no electric supply, if not, whether the complainant sustained loss as alleged by her and whether the employees of the o.ps were negligent in supplying electricity regularly.
8. It is submitted by Smt Moharir for the o.ps that though the electric supply was obtained by the complainant in her field in 1996 no sugarcane crop grown in the year 1996-97 and 1997-98 and therefore, there is no reason to the complainant to sustain a loss as alleged.
9. To which it is denied by Adv. Mr Raisuddin, for the complainant and submitted that the complainant had grown sugarcane in her field in the year 1996-97 and there after in the year 1997-98 and 1998-99 also. However, he has fairly conceded that the entry of sugarcane crop could not be taken in 7/12 extract of the field of complainant the year 1996-97 and 1997-98. Further, he has tried to support his contention by relying on the copy of certificate issued by employee of Vasant Agro Sugar Factory, Pusad. But no reasons are given as to why the entry pertain to the sugarcane crop was not taken in the crop statement of the filed for the year 1996-97, 1997-98. Undisputedly copy of 7/12 extract which is produced by the complainant, reflects that in the year 1996-97 and 1997-98 other crops i.e. Cotton, Toor, Jwari, Paddy and Maka were grown in the year 1996-97 and in the year 1997-98 only Soyabin crop was grown. Therefore, entries taken in the Public Record i.e. 7/12 extract, cannot be disputed. In the absence of any cogent evidence the certificate issued by the employees of Sugar Factory, which is not public record, cannot be relied on. Even no affidavit of any employee of the sugar factory is also produced on record. Even no record showing sugarcane, if any, was sold to the factory in the year 1996-97 and 1997-98, is produced on record.
10. Therefore, the bare words of the complainant that she had grown sugarcane in her field for the year 1996-97 and 1997-98 cannot be accepted on.
11. Apart from the above facts though 7/12 extract reflects that in the year 1998-99 the complainant had grown sugarcane in her filed, no cogent evidence is produced on record to show that as to how she sustained any loss. No Panchanama of competent authority, showing damage of sugarcane is produced on record. In order to establish that the complainant sustained loss, it was necessary for her to produce record, showing average yield of sugarcane and further a record about sustaining loss, if any. Therefore, in the absence of any such evidence, bare words of the complainant cannot be relied on. But it appears from the copy of impugned judgement & order that the forum without considering all these facts wrongly jumped to the conclusion that the complainant had grown sugarcane in her filed since 1996 and sustained loss, etc. Such unfounded and baseless findings cannot be sustained.
12. Apart from the above facts, there is no evidence as to how the employees of the o.p. acted negligently in supplying electricity regularly. It is merely averred in the complaint that the transformer from where the electricity supply is given to the field of the complainant is provided was damaged but the same was not replaced immediately, etc. Even if it is presumed that the transformer was damaged or out of order for any period and it was not replaced immediately, in the absence of specific evidence, it cannot be accepted that the employee of the o.p. were negligent and they are responsible for the loss, if any, sustained by the complainant. But the copy of impugned judgement & order reflects that the Forum without appreciating all these facts properly, committed serious error in holding that the employees of the o.p. were negligent in maintaining the electric line and DP or transformer. Such erroneous findings cannot be sustained.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the appellant succeeds and appeal deserves to be allowed.
Hence, the following order:-
ORDER
i. Appeal is allowed
ii. Impugned judgement & order dtd.04.10.2000 passed by District Consumer Forum, Yavatmal, is set aside.
iii. Consequently, Consumer Complaint No. CC/98/330 stands dismissed.
iv. No order as to cost.
v. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties.
