BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)

DATED: 09.08.2023

PRESENT

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT

Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR  :       JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mrs. DIVYASHREE M :      LADY MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 2519/2022 & 2520/2022

COMMON ORDER IN A.NOs.2519 & 2520 OF 2022

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT

01.    The complainants have filed these Appeals under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 challenging the impugned order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bidar, in CC No.69/2017 & CC No.70/2017, dated: 13.10.2022.

02.    The parties to these Appeals will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the Commission below.

03.    Heard the arguments of learned counsels for both parties to the Appeals. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  04.    The District Commission after enquiring into the matter had partly allowed the Consumer Complaint Nos.69/2017 & 70/2017.      Aggrieved by these impugned orders, complainants have filed these Appeals.

05.    Perused the impugned orders and the grounds urged in both the Appeals.  The brief facts of the Appeals are that, the complainant in CC No.70/2017 is the absolute owner of land bearing Sy No.549/A measuring 14 acres and the complainant in CC No.69/2017 is the absolute owner of land bearing Sy No.549/A measuring 17 acres 01 gunta and both are situated at Bhalki, Bidar District.  The complainants are having open well and bore-well facility for irrigating sugar cane crop which is being grown by feeding water through rubber drip pipes and for which they had electricity connection from opposite party No.1.  Complainants have grown sugar cane crop aged about 5 months old and on 03.04.2016 at about 1.30 pm because of heavy wind-blown there was a snap of sparking of high tension wire which were passing through the complainants land and those were loosely hung in between two poles at the distance of 80 meters instead of 30 to 40 meters and thereby the sugar cane crop was totally set to fire.  The fire brigade rushed to the spot within 30 to 40 minutes, because of shortage of plenty of water they did not succeed to douse the fire and hence crop was burnt to ashes.  The yield expected was 45 tons per acres which 01 ton fetched price Rs.2,200/- and therein in all he sustained loss of Rs.13,86,000/- apart from Rs.3,25,000/- towards burnt drip pipes.  The said incident was reported to Taluka Tahasildar and opposite parties on 06.04.2016.  The Village Accountant after due inspection drawn Panchanama dated: 12.04.2016, assessed loss of crop in 10 to 12 acres of land and rubber drip pipes in land bearing Sy. No.549/A and 549/AA burnt.   The complainants approached opposite party claiming compensation, but opposite party refused to pay the same. 

06.    The grounds urged in the appeals are that, the revenue officers have visited the spot in which the incident took place at Sy. No.549/A & 549/AA and the concerned authority have estimated the loss of income to the tune of Rs.23,00,000/- and the same was submitted before the District Commission, despite the same the District Commission had passed its orders without appreciating the same.  The complainants have submitted the bills towards installation of drip irrigation pipes, but the same was not considered by the District Commission.  The complainants have suffered financial loss for the entire year and hence sought for enhancement of compensation.    

07.    Perused the impugned order and appeal papers in both Appeals.  The learned counsel appearing for opposite parties  had argued that, on record there is no crop mentioned in the RTC, yet they have already paid the amount to the complainants along with interest as per the order of the District Forum and hence prayed for dismissal of the Appeals.   On the contrary Learned Counsel for Appellants submits that, the compensation awarded is too meager. In view of these submissions, we are of the considered view that, as the opposite parties had already complied the orders of the District Commission by making payments to the complainants, there is no need to proceed further in the above matters to modify or enhance the award amount.  Hence Appeal Nos.2519 & 2520 OF 2022 are dismissed with no order as to costs.     

08.    The original of this Appeal order shall be kept in A.No.2519/2022 and a certified copy thereof shall be kept in Appeal No.2520/2022.

09.    Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as to the parties to the Appeals.

LADY MEMBER        JUDICIAL MEMBER         PRESIDENT

KNMP*