BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, COMMON ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.61/2009 & C.C.62/2009 Order dated this the 14th day of August 2009 COMPLAINANT/S IN CC.61/2009 Smt.Yashodamma W/o Late Nanjundegowda, R/o Bookanakere Village, Bookanakere Hobli, K.R.Pet Taluk, Mandya District. COMPLAINANT/S IN CC.62/2009 Sri.Shivaramu S/o Ningappa, R/o Bookanakere Village, Bookanakere Hobli, K.R.Pet Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.Yogananda., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Executive Engineer, CHESCOM, K.R.Pet Town, Mandya District. (By Sri.K.V.Sheshadri., Advocate) Date of complaint 21.05.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 08.06.2009 Date of order 14.08.2009 Total Period 2 Months 6 Days Result The complaints are allowed in part. The Opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.6,990/- with cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant Yashodamma in C.C.61/2009 and further, Opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.9,320/- with cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant Shivaramu in C.C.62/2009 within 4 months. Copy of this order shall be kept in C.C.62/2009. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. Since, the facts of the case are similar nature, these complaints are clubbed together and disposed off by this Common Order. 2. These complaints are filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party claiming compensation. 3. The facts of the complainants are that the complainant in C.C.61/2009 is the owner of 0-30 gts of land in Sy.No.81 of Bachahally Village, K.R.Pet Taluk, given in oral partition by her father. There is a I.P. set in Sy.no.81 in the name of the complainant Shivaramu in C.C.62/2009 and these two complainants are sister and brother and used the water from the I.P. set and shared the electric charges. The complainants had raised sugar cane crop in their land. On 26.12.2007 at about 2.00 p.m., the electric wire passing over the land of complainant snapped and fell over the sugar cane crop and on account of this mischief sugar cane crop and the coconut trees were burnt. The complainant Yashodamma has sustained loss of Rs.1,50,000/- and the complainant Shivaramu sustained loss of Rs.50,000/- and this loss is on account of negligence of the Opposite party. The complainants brought this fire mischief to the notice of the Opposite party, but the Opposite party did not visit the spot. The complainants have filed complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, K.R.Pet Police Station, on the very same day and F.I.R. was registered and the police made spot inspection and noticed the damage and the police addressed letter to the Opposite party requesting to pay suitable compensation to the complainants. In spite of the legal notice and request, the Opposite party has not responded. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. On these grounds, the complainants have sought for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively. In addition to compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively for mental shock, agony with costs. 4. The Opposite party has filed version in both the complaints. In respect of C.C.61/2009, the Opposite party has pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. Further, the complainant has not sustained any loss, due to the deficiency in service of the Opposite party and even the snapped wire did not fell on the land of the complainants. In fact, the complainant by name of Shivaramu, the adjacent owner (complainant in C.C.62/09) has supplied sugar cane to the I.C.L. Sugar Factory and obtained 75% amount. Further, one Thimma Setty has drawn electric connection un-authorisedly to his pump-set using low quality wire and due to short circuit, the electric fire fell to the sugar cane crop and then the fire spread to the adjacent lands. Therefore, the Opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. In respect of C.C.62/2009, the Opposite party has pleaded that one Thimma Setty has drawn un-authorizedly electric connection to his I.P. set using low quality wire and on account of short circuit electric spark fell to the sugar cane of Thimma Setty and the fire spread to the neighboring lands and therefore, the Opposite party is not liable for the loss of sugar cane crop of the complainants and not liable to pay any compensation. In fact, the complainant has supplied 92.75 tonns to I.C.L. Sugar Factory, K.R.Pet and received 75% of the rate prevailing then and that supply includes the sugar cane from the land of Yashodamma. As per the Agricultural Department, the average yield is only 40 to 45 tonns per acre and complainants are not entitled to any compensation and complaints are liable to be dismissed. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the complainant in C.C.61/2009 is a Consumer? 2. Whether the electric fire to the sugar cane crop of the complainants land is on account of the negligence of the Opposite party? 3. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 4. Whether the complainants are entitled to the relief sought for? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. POINT NO.1:- In respect of C.C.61/2009, the Opposite party has taken the contention that the complainant is not a Consumer. But the contention of the complainant is that Shivaramu the complainant in C.C.62/2009 is her brother and they have got the land of her father oral partition and from the I.P. set of Shivaramu she gets water and growing sugar cane crop and shared the electric charges. The complainant has produced Ex.C.5 R.T.C. copy to show that she is the owner of 0.30 guntas in Sy.No.81/AP1 and she got it under gift. The complainant Shivaramu in C.C.62/2009 is the owner of Sy.No.81 to the extent of 1 acre and he has filed affidavit stating that he has obtained electric connection and both he and his sister Yashodamma using the water supply and sharing the electric charges and he has produced Genealogical document Ex.C.12 to prove that the complainants are sister and brother. Therefore, when the lands of her father are shared by brother and sister and the water of the pump set is shared by them with permission, the complainant Yashodamma becomes the beneficiary, though not a direct consumer and therefore, the beneficiary is held to be a consumer as defined under the C.P.Act. Therefore, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative. 9. POINTS NO.2 & 3:- It is undisputed fact that the I.P. set in the land of Shivaramu in C.C.62/2009 in Sy.No.81 is having electric connection from Opposite party and the complainant Shivaramu owns 1 acre land in Sy.No.81 and Yashodamma in C.C.61/2009 owns 30 guntas in same survey number. It is undisputed that they had grown sugar cane crop in the relevant year and on account of electric mishap, the fire spread to sugar cane crop of the complainants. According to the complainants, the electric wire passing through the land of Shivaramu on 26.12.2007 at about 2.00 p.m. snapped and fell over the sugar cane crop and on account of this, the sugar cane crop of both the complainants were burnt, because they are adjacent. The contention of the Opposite party is that one Thimma Setty is the neighbor of the lands of these complainants and he had unauthorizedly drawn electric connection to his I.P. set and on account of short circuit, the fire was caught over to the sugar cane land of Thimma Setty and the fire spread over to the land of the complainants and therefore, due to the illegal act of Thimma Setty, the fire mischief has occurred and there is no deficiency in service by the Opposite party or negligent act. But, the complainant Shivaramu has produced Ex.C.1 petition given to the Opposite party Office on 31.12.2007, stating that the fire mischief and claiming compensation and further, both the complainants have lodged the petition to the K.R.Pet Police Station about the fire mischief as per Ex.C.1 & C.2 respectively and in fact, the police have drawn mahazar Ex.C.3 and the mahazar reveals that the electric wire passing through the land of Sri.B.M.Nagaraju was found cut lying in the land and the fire mischief spread over to the lands of the complainants. In fact, the complainant Shivaramu has produced the photos Ex.C.6 to show the burnt sugar cane crop. 10. The Opposite party has not produced any evidence to prove that one Thimma Setty has drawn electric line to his I.P. set unauthorisdely and due to short circuit, the electric spark fell to his sugar cane crop and thereafter spread over to the lands of the complainants. In fact Opposite party Official has admitted in evidence that the lands of complainants are not adjacent to land of Thimma Setty. There is no report of the Opposite party to that effect. No materials are produced by the Opposite party to prove the same. When the complainants are Consumers, when the document proves that the electric wire drawn on the complainants land snapped and due to electric spark, the sugar cane crop of the complainants was burnt, so snapping of the electric wires passing over the land of the complainant was only due to the negligent maintenance of the electric lines and no other reason is forthcoming. Even, for the sake of arguments, if the electric wire due to short circuit electric wire cut and leading to electric spark and causing fire mischief to the sugar cane crop in the land of B.M.Nagaraju as per the mahazar, but the lands of the complainants are adjacent to them and only due to this electric mishap, the sugar cane crop of the complainants was burnt and in spite of the petition and legal notice, the Opposite party has not taken any action. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 11. POINT NO.4:- The complainant in C.C.61/2009 has claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- claiming the loss of sugar cane crop and damage to coconut trees, apart from Rs.50,000/- for mental shock and agony. According to the Opposite party, this complainant has supplied sugar cane in the name of Shivaramu to I.C.L. and received 75% of the rate. The complainant has admitted that some sugar cane was supplied to the factory. According to her, she did not ask for amount from her brother Shivaramu the complainant in another case. 12. In C.C.62/2009 also, the Opposite party has taken the contention that the complainant has supplied 92.75 tonns to the I.C.L. factory and received 75% of the rate and the supply of sugar cane includes the sugar cane from the land of Yashodamma. 13. The case and evidence of the complainant that in the land of Yashodamma measuring 0.30 guntas there were 25 coconut trees and in the name of Shivaramu measuring 1 acre there were 40 coconut trees are not supported by any document and in the R.T.C. there is no mention of coconut trees. Even in the photos Ex.C.6 we do find coconut trees. When according to the photos, the sugar cane crop was not completely burnt and it is admitted that the sugar cane was supplied to the factory, we cannot accept the evidence, the coconut trees were completely burnt. So, the complainants cannot claim any compensation in respect of any coconut trees. Now, in respect of the compensation for the sugar cane in C.C.62/2009, the Opposite party has produced the letter of I.C.L. Sugar Factory, wherein in the name of the complainant Shivaramu 92.75 tonns are supplied to the sugar factory and it includes the sugar cane crop from the land of the Yashodamma the complainant in C.C.61/2009 also as per the admission of the Yashodamma. As per this document, the net amount for this 92.75 tonns is Rs.60,960/-, if excluding freight and harvest charges of Rs.9,772/-. So, the rate per ton comes to Rs.762/-, during that year the sugar cane rate was Rs.1,100/- per ton. So, the complainants have sustained loss of Rs.338/- per ton, out of this Rs.105/- is to be deducted towards freight and harvest charges. So, at the rate of Rs.233/- per ton, the complainants are entitled to the compensation from the Opposite party. According to the evidence of the complainant Shivaramu in their permit sugar cane of one Ravi is also supplied and according to him, only 40 tonns were supplied from his land and his sister land. As per Ex.R.1 produced by the Opposite party, the average net yield of sugar cane is 40 to 45 tonns per acre. So, if we take 40 tonns of yield per acre, complainant Yoashamma to the extent of land is 0.30 guntas and so for 30 tonns, the loss of income is only Rs.6,990/- and in case of complainant Shivaramu to the extent of 1 acre, the loss would be Rs.9,320/- for 40 tonns and thereby, the complainants are entitled to compensation amount from the Opposite party as above. 14. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER 1. The complaints are allowed in part. The Opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.6,990/- with cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant Yashodamma in C.C.61/2009 and further, Opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.9,320/- with cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant Shivaramu in C.C.62/2009 within 4 months. 2. Copy of this order shall be kept in C.C.62/2009. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 14th day of August 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
