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, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.94/2009 Order dated this the 26th day of November 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.B.K.Madegowda S/o Late Kenchegowda, R/o Bendaravadi Village, Kirugaval Hobli, Malavally Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.G.K.Channa Keshava., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. The Superintending Engineer Electrical, Chescom, Opposite to Kurubara Hostel, M.C.Road, Mandya. 2. The Executive Engineer, Electrical, Chescom, Opposite to Kurubara Hostel, M.C.Road, Mandya. 3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, II Sub Division, Malavally, Mandya District. 4. The Section Officer, Chescom, Kirugaval, Malavally Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.A.Immanuel., Advocate) Date of complaint 05.08.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 19.08.2009 Date of order 26.11.2009 Total Period 3 Months 7 Days Result The complaint is partly allowed, directing the Opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant within two months. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties claiming compensation of Rs.3,10,000/- with interest. 2. The case of the Complainant is that he owns land in Sy.No.15/2 measuring 6 acre 10 guntas in Bendaravadi Village, Malavally Taluk and he is a consumer of electricity and by taking electric connection for irrigation from the Opposite party bearing No.BR M2 IP 276 and further, the electricity line of 11 K.V. passes over the land of the Complainant. The Complainant was above to harvest the sugar cane crop and on 15.04.2007 the 11 K.V. feeder centre phase was cut and fell over the sugar cane crop and the entire sugar cane crop grown in 3 ½ acres were totally burnt and it was noticed by him on 16.04.2007 and immediately brought to the notice of 4th Opposite party and also filed a petition before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kirugaval and Police have visited the land and drew a mahazar on 17.04.2007 clearly mentioning that 180 tones of sugar cane was totally burnt. The Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector has opined as electrical accident was due to over load of electricity in 11 K.V. and Opposite parties have violated the Section 29 and 82A(3) of Indian Electricity Rule, 1956. Therefore, there is gross negligence on the part of the Opposite parties in proper maintenance of the electric wires. The Complainant has sustained loss of Rs.2,50,000/- on account of burning of the sugar cane crop and he has also suffered mental shock and on these grounds, he has claimed Rs.2,50,000/- for loss of sugar cane crop, Rs.50,000/- for mental shock and agony and Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses. 3. The Opposite parties have filed version contending that the Complainant is not a Consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. It is denied that there is deficiency in service. It is disputed that the Complainant owns land in Sy.No.15/2 and he has raised sugar cane crop in 3 ½ acres and ready for harvest and there are standing crop of 200 tones of sugar cane fit for harvesting. It is denied that entire extent of standing crop was reduced to ashes. By growing sugar cane under the electric lines, the Complainant is negligent. The fire accident set-off by the electrical short circuit is not from the supply line provided to the Complainant. If there is any deficiency in the supply of electricity into his installation, the question of deficiency in service comes into play. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. It is denied that the Complainant has sustained loss of Rs.2,50,000/-. The complaint is barred by limitation. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. During trial, the Complainant is examined and has produced the documents Ex.C.1 and C.10. On behalf of the 3rd Opposite party is examined. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Complainant is a Consumer? 2. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 3. Whether the Complainant has sustained loss due to burning of sugar cane crop, if so to what extent? 4. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation? 5. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the compensation sought for? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. POINT NO.1:- According to the Complainant, he has obtained electric connection for IP set bearing BR M2 IP 276 in the land bearing Sy.No.15/2 and he grows crop using water from the IP set. The Opposite party has simply stated that it does not admit that the Complainant is a Consumer as defined under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. According to the Opposite party, the fire accident set-off by electric short circuit is not from the supply line provided to the Complainant. Therefore, he is not a Consumer. The cross-examination by the Complainant, it is elicited by the Opposite party that from the transformer fixed to the electric wire passing through the land of the Complainant electric connection is given to the borewell. This evidence of the Complainant is not challenged by producing any material by the Opposite party. Of course, the Complainant has produced the sketch prepared by the Electrical Inspector Head and in that sketch it is not shown the situation of IP set and connection from the electric line. It is not the case that the pump-set to which electric supply is provided is situated in another land. There is no clear cut evidence to prove that the electric line from which electricity supply to the IP set of the Complainant is quite different to the electric lines passing over the land of the Complainant, from which one of the electric line was cut causing fire mischief to the sugar cane crop. The fire mischief due to the cutting of one electric wire out of 3 wires of 11 KV feeder passing through the land of the Complainant is not at all disputed. Therefore, we hold that the Complainant is a Consumer and complaint is maintainable. 9. POINT NO.2:- According to the Complainant, due to the negligence of the Opposite party in proper maintenance of the electric wires passing through the land of the Complainant, the fire mischief occurred causing burning of sugar cane crop in his land. Apart from the evidence of the Complainant, we have the police mahazar and further importantly the report of the Electrical Inspector Head as per Ex.C.5, C.6 and C.7. There is no reason to disbelieve the report of Electrical Inspector Head as per Ex.C.7 and the Opposite parties have not challenged the same before any competent authority. Even 3rd Opposite party has admitted the fire accident set-off by the electrical short circuit from the electric line passing through the land of the Complainant and Ex.C.7 clearly proves that the Opposite parties have not safely maintained electrical conductors / electric lines by observing the higher load. Therefore, it is proved that due to the negligence of the Opposite parties, the electrical fire mischief has taken place which is root cause of burning of sugar cane crop of the Complainant and hence, the Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. 10. POINT NO.3:- The Complainant has contended that out of 6 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.15/2 of Bendaravadi Village, he had grown sugar cane crop to the extent of 3 ½ acres and there was 200 tones of sugar cane about to harvest and it was totally burnt and he sustained loss of Rs.2,50,000/-. The Opposite party has disputed the same. Of course, the Complainant has produced the copy of the RTC Ex.C.10 and it proves that the Complainant owns 6 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.15/2. In RTC, the crop grown is sugar cane. According to the Complainant, he had ground sugar cane crop in 3 ½ acres out of that 6 ½ acres. But, his evidence is contradictory from his own records. In Ex.C.2 (his petition) at the earliest point of time i.e., 16.04.2007, immediately after the fire incident, he has given this petition to the 4th Opposite party stating that the sugar cane crop fit for harvesting in 2 acres was burnt due to electric fire mischief. But, before the Police he has given statement stating that he had ground in 3 acres and 180 tones were burnt. Though, the police have drawn the mahazar Ex.C.4 stating that there was sugar cane in 3 acres approximately 180 tones were burnt, but there is no measurement by the Revenue Officer to prove actually in what extent of land the sugar cane crop was burnt. In Ex.C.1 given on 13.05.2008 to the 1st Opposite party, the Complainant stated that sugar cane crop in 3 ½ acres were burnt. So, here is a Complainant who gives different extent of land and yield of the sugar cane crop which was said to be burnt. Even the report of Assistant Director of Agriculture, Malavalli, Ex.C.9 cannot be believed that in 3 ½ acres 210 tones sugar cane crop was found to be burnt and loss was caused, because the report is dated 30.01.2008 and though this letter is based on the report of the staff of the Agricultural Office, but the report is not accompanying with the letter Ex.C.9 and even no one is examined to prove Ex.C.9. 11. Further, the oral evidence of the Complainant creates doubt that the entire sugar cane crop grown either in 2 acres or 3 acres or 3 ½ acres was totally burnt into ashes. It is not a case, the sugar cane was dry and therefore, due to electrical fire mischief, the standing crop was burnt. Of course, as per photo produced by the Complainant it was ready for harvest and so the sugar cane crop was having juice and so it was wet and it is green sugar cane crop and hence there is no question of total burning of sugar cane crop into ashes. Even, the photo does not prove the same. It is pertinent to note that in the previous year, he had supplied sugar cane to the Chamundeshwari Sugar Factory and the burnt sugar cane crop is a ratoon crop and the field man of the factory had come near the land for making Oppige Card. According to the Complainant, in the year 2006 April he had harvested sugar cane crop in 6 acres and supplied 300 tones and he received nearly Rs.3,00,000/- through the Society Bank and the crop was registered with the sugar factory. But, no documents are produced at all to prove actual supply of sugar cane crop and the payment made. It is well known that in case of fire mischief to the sugar cane crop ready for harvest, the factories will give permission to supply the sugar cane immediately and will make payment at reduced rate. In spite of it, the Complainant has not whispered anything and has suppressed the income derived by supplying burnt sugar cane to the factory and thereby suppressed the quantity of sugar cane supplied and therefore, his evidence that the expected yield was 60 tones per acre and in 3 ½ acres and he sustained loss of 210 tones cannot be believed. Further, the Complainant has not produced any document from the sugar factory to prove the price of the sugar cane per ton for the year 2006-07. It cannot be said on what basis the Assistant Director in his letter dated 30.01.2008 as per Ex.C.9 stated that rate at Rs.1,100/- per ton. The best evidence from the sugar factory at Mandya District about the rate of sugar cane per ton for the year 2006-07 is withheld by the Complainant. Therefore, in view of the above suppression of materials and not coming to the Forum with clean hands, the Complainant is not entitled to the entire compensation claimed for the burning of sugar cane crop. But, as observed above the sugar factory would pay the cost of sugar cane at reduced rate and therefore, taking average yield of 40 tones per acre for 2 acres as claimed by the Complainant at the earliest point of time, estimating Rs.125/- per ton being the loss on account of reduced rate from the factory for supply of partly burnt sugar cane crop, it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.10,000/-. It is proved by the documents that the Opposite party has not at all considered the claim in spite of the letters Ex.C.1 to C.3 and hence, the Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service. 12. POINT NO.4 & 5:- The Opposite parties have taken contention that the complaint is barred by limitation and do not admit, cause of action has arisen on 16.04.2007, 17.04.2007, 03.05.2008 and 18.08.2007 and without giving clearly the cause of action the complaint is filed. It is undisputed that on 15.04.2007, the fire mischief took place. The Complainant gave a petition as per Ex.C.2 on 16.04.2007 and then as per Ex.C.3 to the Tahasildar on 17.04.2007 and again as per Ex.C.1 to the 1st Opposite party on 18.05.2008. Admittedly, the Opposite parties have not given any reply to the Complainant and they have not rejected the claim. Even though, as per the provision of Consumer Protection Act, the complaint should be filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action, usually the cause of action arises on the date of incident or from the date of repudiation. In this case for the letters given within 2 years, the Opposite parties have not at all responded and as per Ex.C.7, 3rd Opposite party was doing investigation and the claim of the Complainant was not at all rejected by the Opposite party. Therefore, it enables the continuation of the cause of action and from 13.05.2008 within 2 years the complaint is filed and therefore, the complaint is not barred by limitation. 13. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed, directing the Opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Complainant within two months. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 26th day of November 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
