-::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.62/2018.
Date of filing: 18.09.2018.
Date of disposal: 13.06.2019.
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: Sri Mallikarjun, S/o Bandeppa Joldabke,
Age: 47 years, Occ Agriculture,
R/o Village Dubalgundi, Tq.Humnabad,
Dist.Bidar.
( By Sri. D.M.Swamy, Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1. The Assistant Executive Engineer,
O & M Sub-Division, GESCOM
Humnabad,Dist. Bidar.
2. The Executive Engineer,
O & M Division, GESCOM
Humnabad,Dist. Bidar.
( By Sri. Mahesh S.Patil., Adv.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
This is a complaint filed U/sec.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 by an aggrieved cultivator against the O.Ps alleging deficiency of service and resultant loss of sugar cane crop and the usufruct.
2. The allegations in the complaint are as follows:-
The complainant has an agriculture land totally measuring Acres. 6.27 guntas in Sy.no.189, village Dubalgundi, Tq.Humnabad, Dist.Bidar out of which, he had planted sugarcane over an area of Ac.3.20 guntas, which was eleven months old and matured for harvest on the date of fire accident. The O.Ps have installed an electrical transformer in the lands of the complainant, from which connections were given to all cultivators in the neighborhood. On 11.01.2018 at about 2.15 p.m. he received information from one Nagappa, S/o Ramshetty, a neighboring cultivator to the effect that, H.T. lines running though the transformer being loose were touching each other creating sparks and in turn the sparks were falling unto the sugar-cane crop of the complainant. The crop has caught fire. Receiving such an information the complainant alerted the Fire station at Humnabad through his mobile phone and also other concerned authorities. Before the fire tenders reached his affected field the fire had spreaded far and wide and had destroyed the entire crops.
3. The complainant had further informed the S.I. of police, Hallikhed (B) police station who had reached the spot and had drawn panchanama. The complainant thereafter represented the Tahasildar, Humnabad for compensation towards crop loss, so also to the opponents. The opponents inturn had visited the spot, investigated the matter and had reported the matter to the state Government.
4. The complainant stakes a claim of Rs.3,20,000/- as compensation towards the cost of burnt sugar-cane crop, attributing gross negligence and deficiency of service to the opponents and prays for compensation of compensatory cost.
5. Entering defence upon notice the opponents vide their versions, have feigned ignorance regarding the land holding, plantation of sugar-cane, the installation of the Transformer in the complainant’s land, looseness of the H.T. transmission line and the fire accident coupled with resultant crop loss. They also deny any deficiency of service and further that, the complainant has supplied sugar cane to some sugar factory, name not disclosed.
6. Both sides have filed their respective evidence affidavits and were heard in length. Only complainant has submitted copies of documents listed at the end of this order.
7. Considering the juxtaposed contentions of the parties , the following points arise for our considerations.
- Does the complainant prove deficiency of service and resultant crop loss?
- Does the O.Ps. prove that, there had been no laxity in maintaining the H.T. line, no fire accident and no consequential loss to the complainant?
- What orders ?
8. Our answers to the points raised are as follows:-
- In the Affirmative.
- In the Negative.
- As per the final orders owing to the following:-
:: REASONS ::
9. Consideration of points (a) & (b) would have to proceed simultaneously as they are intricately interlinked. While the complainant has alleged transformer installed in his land and H.T. lines drawn over it were loose and uncared for, the opponents have denied the same. Also they have denied the fire accident and burning of sugar cane crop. The documents produced by complainant in Annexures A to C proves his land holding over the captioned land. The complainant has got recorded his statement before the jurisdictional Hallikhed (B) police vide Annexure-E, consequent upon which panchanama was drawn vide Annexure-F. Vide Annexure-D, the jurisdictional police has intimated the fact to the jurisdictional Tahasildar from which fact of sugar cane burning is amply proven and the value has been assessed as Rs.3,20,000/-. The report of the fire brigade at Annexure-G corroborates the fact and even the officials of opponents vide Annexures –H and J have admitted about the electrical fire accident in Annexure-J and crop loss to the extent of Ac.3.00. At col.no.8, the cause of fire accident has been attributed to sparks at the Transformer. Keeping in view, the overwhelming proofs and admissions of the opponent’s side, we unhesitanly answer points no.(a) and (b) accordingly.
10. Point (c) Attempting the assess the loss of the complainant it is evident that, the entire sugar cane crop over Acres 3.00 of land in Sy.no.189 were burnt in the inferno.
11. The Hon’ble National Commission in the case reported in III (2010) CPJ.198 (NC) DHCVNL v/s Vidhya Devi has been pleased to hold:
“ Electricity companies transmitting energy are duty bound to maintain and ensure safety and security of persons, animals and other objects and when exposed wires cause damages the service provider has to compensate losses”.
12. The complainant has produced a letter from the District Statistical Officer, Bidar with a computerised sheet of details of sugar cane yield for the year 2012-13, and some loose sheets like paper clippings etc. In the absence of any challenge to this document the average yield in the year 2017-18 has to be calculated in confirmity. In one of the enclosures it appears the Govt. has fixed the price of sugar-cane crop @ Rs.2750/- per ton for the year 2018-19. As per the statistical report the yield would go up to117 tons X Ac.3.00 X 2750 = Rs.9,65,250/- and we hold that, irrespective of the calculation, the complainant claiming a compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- towards the crop loss, we award the same the complainant deserve the said amount as compensation and proceed to pass the following:-
::ORDERS::
The complaint is allowed in part.
- The opponents are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- towards the cost of his loss of crop:
- Both are further severally and jointly liable to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensatory cost and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.
- The principal amount of Rs. 3,20,000/- would carry an interest @ 12% p.a. calculated from the date of complaint till realisation’;
- Four weeks time granted to comply this order.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 13th day of June 2019).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure.A- Copy of R.T.C. of Sy.no.189, village
Dubalgundi,Tq.Humnabad, Dist.Bidar.
- Annexure.B– Khatha certificate.
- Annexure.C- Certificate.
- Annexure.D– Report of Hallikhed (B) P.S. to Tahsildar, Humnabad
- Annexure.E- Copy of statement of complainant.
- Annexure.F- Spot Panchanama (Copy)
- Annexure.G- Report of Fire Brigade.
- Annexure.H- Report of Asst.Executive Engineer (Elec.) O & M Sub-
Division, GESCOM, Humnabad to Deputy Electrical
Inspectorate, Bidar.
- Annexure.J- (‘I’ excluded) Copy of the report of the Same officer to
Dy. Electrical Inspector, Bidar Dt.17.01.2018.
- Annexure K- Office copy of legal notice with postal receipts.
- Annexure L- Letter of District statistical officer enclosing yield certificate etc.
Document produced by the Opponent.
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Sri Mallikarjun S/o Bandeppa Joldabke (Complainant).
Opponents.
- R.W.1- Sri. Ramesh S/o Bhama Power, Executive Engineer, GESCOM O & M, Humnabad,Bidar.
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
