Karnataka

Gadag

CC/76/2017

Sri Praveen S/o Chandrashekraiah, Madalli - Complainant(s)

Versus

Asst Executive Engineer HESCOM - Opp.Party(s)

K.P.Kotigoudar

27 Jul 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GADAG. Basaveshwar Nagar, Opp: Tahasildar Office, Gadag     COMPLAINT NO., 76/2017   DATE OF DISPOSAL  27th DAY OF JULY, 2018

BEFORE:     HON'BLE MRS. Smt C.H. Samiunnisa Abrar, PRESIDENT   HON'BLE MR. Mr. B.S.Keri, MEMBER

 

Complainant   :-

Sri Praveen S/o Chandrashekar Madalli, Age:30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gojanoor, Tq: Shirahatti, Dist: Gadag.   (Rep. by Sri.K.P.Kotegoudar, Adv.)

 

V/s

Respondents    :-

1.   2.

The Assistant Executive Engineer, HESCOM, Hubballi Road, Lakshmeshwar, Tq: Shirahatti, Dist: Gadag. The Executive Engineer (Maintanance), HESCOM, Gadag-582101, Tq: & Dist: Gadag.     (Rep. by   Sri S.K.Patil, Advocate)

                                            

 

 

 

 

 

      O R D E R

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SMT.SAMIUNNISA.C.H., PRESIDENT:

        This complaint is filed by the complainant against the OPs claiming certain reliefs by invoking Sec 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

 

       

        2.       The averments of the complaints in brief are:

             The above complaint filed by the complainant, states that he is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.8, measuring 18 Acres 05 Guntas of Goajanoor Village of Shirahatti Taluka, Gadag District.    It is further stated that out of 18 acres 05 guntas, 10 acres and 05 guntas of land is gifted to the complainant from one Smt. Lakshmavva W/o Sidlingappa Ganiger, through registered Gift Deed dated: 02-09-2010.    The said land is having irrigation facility through irrigation Pump set.  The electricity connection is in the name of Smt. L.S.Ganiger, R/o. Goajanoor, vide No. L.T.4 on 10-06-1991, the said electricity connection is continued in the name of complainant.   Hence the Complainant is a consumer of OP No.1 & 2.    

            The Ops have erected High Tension Electric poles and wires in the land of the complainant for supplying electricity to Magadi and Gojanoor villages.    It is further stated that, on 09-03-2016 at about 06-00 p.m., the H.T. Line wires passing through the land of the complainant were loosely hanged touching each other due to wind and thereby sparked and emitted sparks which fell on the Sugar cane crop of the complainant.                                    The complainant complaints severally about the loosely hanging H.T. electric wires in his land, but OP did not cared to tighten them.  So, due to negligence of the OPs, the sugarcane crop of the complainant caught fire burning the crop and the pipes which are fixed in the land of the complainant burnt.   The complainant sustained huge loss of Rs.7,20,000/- and the complainant has lodged a complaint regarding this fire accident in Lakshmeshwar Police Station on 10-03-2016 registered bearing No. A/F No.13/2016.      The said loss of sugarcane crop of the complainant due to fire accident is mainly due to negligence of the OPs.     Hence the complainant has got issued legal notices to the OPs through his Advocate on 03-05-2016, which has been served upon them, but till today, Ops have not paid any compensation.      Therefore the complainant is compelled to file this complaint claiming Rs.7,20,000/- together with interest @18% p.a., towards loss of sugarcane crop, Rs.1,00,000/- towards  harassment and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complaint. 

   3.     The Forum registered a case and issued a notice to the OPs. After service of the notices the OPs appeared through their Counsel and on behalf of the OPs, the OP No.1 has filed written version stating that all the averments made in the complaint are false, fake, hence denied the same.    The OP No.1 has denied that complainant is not the owner of land bearing Sy.No.8, measuring 18 Acres 05 Guntas of Gojanoor Village of Shirahatti Taluka.  The OPs denied the relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the OPs.   The OPs further denied that the complainant sustained huge loss of Rs.7,20,000/- due to burning of his sugarcane crop, due to sparking of H.T. lines.    It is further denied that the complainant had complained severally to the OPs regarding loose hanging electric wires.    The OPs further denied that the complainant had issued legal notices to the OPs.    The OPs submitted that the Electrical Inspectororate of Dharwad visited the spot of agriculture land and opined that there are no evidence on the field that incident happened due to electrical short circuit.   The OPs have further submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint, because the complainant ought to have filed this complaint before the competent court.    Therefore the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs. 

4.      The complainant has filed his chief affidavit along with 47 documents which are marked as EX C1 to C in support of his case. The documents are as follows:

EX C1	RTC
EX C2	Electric Connection Certificate.
EX C3	Complaint Copy.
EX C4	Mahazar Report
EX C5	Certificate from Fire Brigade
EX C6	Letter to OP
EX C7	Letter to Complainant from Tahasildar
EX C8	Letter along with Certificate from Assistant Director of Agriculture
EX C9	Office Copy of Legal Notice
EX C10 & EX C11	Acknowledgment 2 in Number
EX C12 to EX C14	Photos 3 in Number
EX C15	Mutation 1
EX C16	Bill from Swastic Motors
EX C17	Report from Village Accountant
EX C18 & EX C19	Bill from Vijay Nagara Sugar Pvt Ltd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

On the other hand OP’s are filed the written version and not filed any affidavit behalf of their case, while filing their written version they have filed some of the documents as follows:

1. Copy of the Inspection report.
2. Copy of the letter from EEI to HESCOM.
3. Statement of Lineman.
4. Report of AEE.
5. Section officer statements.

5.      On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudications are as follows:  

1.   2.	Whether the Complainant proves that he is the consumer of OP’s?   Whether the Complainant proves that there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opponents as per CP Act?
3.   4.	Whether complainant is entitled to get the relief prayed for?                                              What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative

Point No.2 – Affirmative

Point No.3 – Partly Affirmative

Point No.3 - As per the final order.

 

 

 

 

 

R E A S O N S

           6.  POINT NO.1:  The complainant filed this complaint against the OP’s claiming compensation against the sugar cane crop burnt in the field of the complainant, due to short circuit of the live electric wires passes in the field of the complainant which belongs to the OP’s Company and further submits that it has not been installed properly those wires are sagging due to this accident have been occurred. On the other hand Op contended that the complainant is not a consumer of the OP’s. Hence the complainant is not entitled to file this complaint before this forum.       

7.      On-going through the records on filed, OP file some of the documents before the forum in document no.2 in page no.2 in first and second paragraph of this page, OP themselves mentioned that the complainant is the customer of Ops Company. Here there is not lot of difference between customer and consumer. A person who buys goods or services from a shop or business. Customers are defined by their purchase of goods or their contracting for services, as the consumer or end user as a term is commonly used a customer is the end consumer of the product. On the other hand if we explain the meaning of consumer a person who purchased goods and service for personal use.  This being the fact OP himself admitted that complainant is the customer. Hence the defense taken by the OP is not holding any water to his defense. Hence we answer point no.1 is in affirmative.

8.POINT NO.2 and 3: Since point no.2 and 3 are inter link and identical we proceed both together to avoid the repetition of fact.

   The complainant submits that, due to the negligency of OP’s on 09.03.2016 at about 6.00pm high tension electrical lines wires passing through the land off the complainant were loosely hanged wires touching each other and due to wind and wires emitted sparks which fell on the sugar cane crop of the complainant and all the crops which has been planted has been burnt and complainant sustained huge loss of Rs.7,20,000/- which has been complained to the OP and as well as Police on 10.03.2016 the complaint is registered, for that Complainant is claiming Rs.7,20,000 along with compensation and litigation charges of Rs.1,10,000/-.

On the other hand OP’s denied the contention of the complainant and submits some of the documents, In which Ops came to the conclusion that complainant is not liable for any compensation, since as per the reports made by the Asst Executive Engineer and Line man and other officers of OP’s and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

Perusing the complaint and the written version, the documents placed on the file the first and fore most point has to be discussed is point no.1. the document no.1 clears that complainant is the owner of the property and he had installed a pump set in his field for agriculture purpose this truth has been spoken by document no.2 the document no.3 and 4 and Unmarked document no.2 and 3 says about the incident occurred on 09.03.2016. But, Ops filed some of the documents i.e. documents EX Op’s 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 these documents are corresponding letters made between the Ops and their officers, In those documents itself shows the negligency made by the Ops because the complainant informed about the accident to the OP on the same date as per the submission letter of line man which has been marked as EX OP4, it has been informed him on 09.03.2016 and as per the report of the Section Officer was also having the knowledge of the incident any how Complainant filed claim application to the Ops on 29.03.2016 as per EX C6 for compensation but the Ops processed the application to their higher authorities after one year as per their report they reported that the incident had not been occurred due to the short circuit of electricity live wires because they did not found any evidence to say that the sparks are occurred on that day and there is no rubbing of the wires, we cannot agree the report filed by the Ops because the Investigating Officers are employees of Ops Company only and they are not recorded the evidence of the villagers to prove their case. And even they are failed to lead the Co-gent evidence against their defense. Since Ops are utterly failed to take defence. Hence we answer as above.

Here, the Complainant filed the document EX No.C18 and 19 to showing the price of the sugar cane as a cogent evidence for the claim but Complainant is not led any evidence of competent authority. Even Ops have also not denied anything about the said documents. Hence forum comes to the conclusion that Complainant is liable for the global compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.10,000 towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- against litigation charges. Hence we answer point no.2 in affirmative, point no.3 in partly affirmative.

9.POINT NO. 4: In view of our findings on above points, we pass the following: 

 

 

 

 

//O R D E R//

 

1.      The above Complaint is Partly Allowed with cost.

2.      Further OP’s are directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of order.

3.      Further Ops are jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation charges.

4.      Further Ops are directed to pay the amount within 30 days from the date of this order failing which they are liable to pay interest @ 12% on Rs.5,00,000/- from the date of incident till the realization.

                     Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

           (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on the day of 27^th July, 2018)

 

 

    (Shri B.S.Keri)                         (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

         Member                                            President