1.      This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, Jagganath Krishnaji Jamale & Anr. against the order dated 13.12.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in FA No.1171 of 2008, wherein the order of the District Consumer Complaint Redressal Forum Osmanabad, (in short ‘the District Forum’) dated 26.08.2008 was set aside and the complaint was dismissed.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/complainants are farmers and grow sugarcane on their field.  On 25.10.2007 at about 1:20 PM there was spark on the heavy electric lines passing over the field and the sugarcane standing on the field got fire.  Some areas of the sugarcane filed were totally burnt.  As per the complainants the drip irrigation system was also burnt.  The complaint was filed before the District Forum by the complainants.  The complaint was resisted by opposite parties/respondents.  The District Forum after considering the material on record and submissions made by the parties passed the following order on 26.08.2008:-

“1.  It is directed to opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.42,000/- for sugarcane crop and Rs.50,000/- for drip irrigation set to the complainant No.1 within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order.

2.     It is directed to opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.63,000/- for sugarcane crop and Rs.50,000/- for drip irrigation set to the complainant no.2 within thirty days from the date of receipt of this order.

3.  Opposite party should pay costs of Rs.500/- each to the complainant within thirty days.”

3.      Aggrieved with the above order of the District Forum, the opposite parties/respondents preferred an appeal bearing No.1171 of 2008 before the State Commission, which was allowed by the State Commission vide its order dated 13.12.2012 and the order dated 26.08.2008 of the District Forum was set aside and the complaint was dismissed. 

4.      Hence the present revision petition by the complainants.

5.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the Electrical Inspector has himself given his report dated 04.06.2008 confirming that the incident of fire on 25.10.2007 was due to sparking in the overhead electrical line.  It was further stated that the State Commission has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainants have supplied sugarcane to some sugar factories before the incident and after the incident as well.  Particularly it has been stated in the order of the State Commission that sugarcane was supplied to Dharashiv Sugar Factory from 01.05.2008 to 15.05.2008 and therefore, sugarcane was produced in the field of the complainants even after the fire incident.  Hence, the State Commission has presumed that there was no loss of the sugarcane due to fire.  The opposite party, the Electricity Board, has also taken a plea that sugarcane was supplied to Natural Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd. on 05.04.2007 and on 12.06.2007 and hence it was not possible to have full grown sugarcane crop in October, 2007 when the incident occurred.  The learned counsel explained that the fact of the matter is that once the sugarcane is cut and supplied to the factory, it is again sown at the same time.  Accordingly, the sown sugarcane grew up in 5-6 months to sufficient height and was ready to mature after some time.  It is also a fact that some of the sugarcane was not burnt and the same was supplied to Dharashiv Sugar Factory. Thus, there is no inconsistency; however, the State Commission has erred in not appreciating these facts and sequence of crop production.

6.      Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that there is a delay of 82 days in filing the present revision petition.  Learned counsel submitted that the wife of the petitioner No.1 was ill and the petitioner No.1 was busy in taking care of her.  As he was the lead complainant and he was looking after all the affairs relating to this case, he could not pursue the matter in time.  Learned counsel prayed for condoning the delay, which was unintentional and inadvertent.    

7.      On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents stated that first of all the revision petition has been filed with a delay of 82 days and no sufficient grounds have been given for condonation of delay in filing the revision petition.  It was prayed that the revision petition may be dismissed only on this count.

8.      The learned counsel for the respondents/opposite parties further stated that the opposite parties were not informed on time regarding the incident and the report of the Electrical Inspector is dated 04.06.2008, which is much after the alleged incident that happened on 25.10.2007.  Therefore, it cannot be accepted as representing true facts of the case. Moreover, it was submitted by the learned counsel that sugarcane had been supplied to sugar factories from April to June 2007 and again in May, 2008. Hence, it proves that there was no loss of sugarcane due to any fire and whole story of fire is concocted one. 

9.      I have carefully gone through the material on record and have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.  First of all it is seen that the revision petition has been filed with a delay of 82 days and the petitioners have stated in the application for condonation of delay that the delay has been caused due to illness of the wife of the petitioner No.1 as he was the lead complainant and he was pursuing the case.  In the interest of justice, the delay is condoned on the grounds mentioned in the application for condonation of delay.

10.    The State Commission in its order has stated that complainant No.1 supplied 81.170 ton of sugarcane and the complainant No.2 supplied 27.918 tons sugarcane to Dharashive Sugar Factory in May, 2008.  It is also mentioned that complainant No.1 supplied 248.420 tons of sugarcane to the Natural Sugar & Allied Industries on 05.04.2007, whereas the complainant No.2 supplied 63.910 tons of sugarcane to Natural Sugar & Allied Industries on 12.06.2007.  Complainant No.1 also supplied 70.695 tons of sugarcane to Terna Sugar factory on 27.07.2008.  Thus, if comparison is made of sugarcane supplied in the year 2007 and in the year 2008, it is seen that complainant No.1 has supplied 248.420 tons of sugarcane in the month of April, 2007, whereas in 2008 the complainant No.1 had supplied a total of 151.865 tons only.  Thus, the reduction in the supply of sugarcane in the subsequent season can be easily seen.  Similarly, complainant No.2 supplied 63.910 tons sugarcane on 12.06.2007, whereas he could supply only 27.918 tons of sugarcane in May, 2008.  Here also the reduction is self-evident.  This reduction proves the case of the complainants that there was a sugarcane loss due to fire.  It is true that the crop in October month may not be fully matured, but if the crop is lost at this stage, the compensation would have to be same as if the full matured crop was lost as it cannot be resown at that time. 

11.    Moreover, the report of Electrical Inspector dated 04.06.2008 has also confirmed the incident of fire due to sparking in the overhead electrical lines.  Electrical Inspector is a Government servant and there is no occasion to disbelieve his report.  The respondents have not brought any evidence to show that the Electrical Inspector’s report is either fraudulent or biased.  Thus, the incident of fire is proved.

12.    Based on the above examination, I find that the State Commission has not correctly appreciated the facts and evidence involved in the present case, particularly the crop cycle of sugarcane so far as it relates to loss in sugarcane.

13.    So far as the damaged irrigation system is concerned, the State Commission has observed in its order that the original receipt has not been produced and the papers produced are only the estimate.  No claim can be granted on the basis of estimate only. The State Commission has rightly not accepted the same.

14.    Based on the above discussion, I find that the order of the State Commission in respect of the loss of sugarcane due to fire cannot be sustained and is set aside, whereas, the order of the State Commission in respect of the damaged drip irrigation system is upheld.  For the damage of sugarcane, the order of the District Forum dated 26.08.2008 is upheld.  Accordingly, the respondents/opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.42,000/- (Rupees forty two thousand only) to the complainant No.1 and Rs.63,000/- (Rupees sixty three thousand only) to complainant No.2 along with interest @ 7% from the date of the order of the District Forum i.e. 26.08.2008.  Accordingly, the revision petition stands partly allowed.  This order be complied with by the respondents/opposite parties within a period of 45 days, failing which, further additional interest of 4% shall be payable by the respondents from the date of this order till actual payment.