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.60/2009 Order dated this the 24th day of August 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.Jogigowda S/o Ningegowda, R/o Nandahally Village, Basaralu Hobli, Mandya Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.Yogananda., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. The Assistant Executive Engineer, CHESCOM, Basaral Section, Basaral, Mandya Taluk, Mandya District. 2. The Executive Engineer, CHESCOM, Mandya. (By Sri.A.Immanuel., Advocate) Date of complaint 21.05.2009 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 08.06.2009 Date of order 24.08.2009 Total Period 2 Months 16 Days Result The complaint is partly allowed, directing the Opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant with cost of Rs.1,000/- within two months. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite party claiming compensation of Rs.2,55,000/-. 2. The case of the Complainant is that he is a Consumer of the Opposite party having taken electric supply to his I.P. set No.R2-IP-1183 and using the water from I.P. set, he had grown sugar cane an extent of 2.00 acres. On 07.03.2008 at about 1.00 p.m., the electric wire passing over the land of the Complainant due to heavy wind came in contact with each other and due to this sugarcane grown below the electricity wires caught fire and entire crop completely burnt. Even, the Teak saplings, Coconut saplings, Banana trees and Neem trees were also burnt. The Complainant has sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Complainant brought this fact to the notice of the Opposite party. The Complainant has filed a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Basaral Police Station and case in FAR.03/2008 was registered. The police visited the spot and noticed the damage and drawn spot mahazar. The Complainant made several visits to the Opposite party Office, but Opposite party has not paid compensation. The short circuit occurred is only on account of improper maintenance of the electric wires by the Opposite party. Thus, there is deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite party. In spite of legal notice, the Opposite party has not made any payment of compensation. Hence, the present complaint is filed. 3. The 1st Opposite party has filed version and 2nd Opposite party has adopted the same. Calling upon the Complainant put to strict proof of owner of the land and having electric connection, the Opposite party disputed that on account of electric wire passing over the land of the Complainant, due to heavy wind two wires came in contact with each other and there was a fire causing the burning of sugar cane of 2.00 acres. If there is an element of sagging of wires then only due to blowing of heavy wind, there is possible of short circuit and causing fire. But, there was no such sagging of wire at the spot. Technically whenever such contacting of two wires takes place, immediately the fuse in the transformer goes off and the flow of electricity in the transmission line immediately goes off or gets stopped. Even such incident has not been recorded on that day. The Complainant never made a complaint to the Opposite party Authorities about the incident and no opportunity was given to Opposite party to make a spot inspection about the incident. But, the Complainant had sufficient time to give a written complaint to the police who were not the authority either to set-right technical flaws, if any nor the police authority will compensate the Complainant. The Complainant has not informed the Opposite party, for the reason that Opposite party would come out with truth by the Technical examination of the incident. The Opposite party cannot be held liable for the negligence of the Complainant, since the Complainant had grown the crop encroaching the clearance area, where the electric lines are drawn. The alleged incident of fire is nothing, but the bad intentional act of the Complainant in setting the fire voluntarily knowing fully well that there was no buyer of sugar cane, during that time as the price of sugar cane was all time low. This is to be discouraged. It is denied that the Complainant has sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/- and he is not entitled to Rs.2,55,000/- as compensation. Therefore, the complaint is to be dismissed with costs. 4. During trial, the Complainants son on the basis of power of attorney and another witness are examined and has produced Ex.C.1 to C.11. The 1st Opposite party and another witness are examined and got marked Ex.R.1 to & R.4. 5. We have heard both the sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Complainant proves that he had grown sugar cane in 2.00 acres of land in Sy.No.59/A of Harakadahalli Village and due to sagging of the wire, the fire mishap occurs and his sugar cane crop was burnt? 2. Whether the sagging of the wire was due to the negligence of the Opposite party? 3. Whether the Complainant has sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/- due to burning of sugar cane crop? 4. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the compensation claimed? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. According to the Complainant, he is the owner of 3.00 acres of land in Sy.No.59/A of Harakadahally Village, Basaral Hobli and had grown sugar cane in 2.00 acres using the water from I.P.set. The Opposite party has called upon the Complainant to prove it. Ex.C.7 R.T.C. clearly proves that the Complainant is the owner of 3 acres in Sy.No.59/A of Harakadahalli Village, Basaralu Hobli. The fact of the Complainant is Consumer of Opposite party having electric connection to the I.P. set is proved by the receipts Ex.C.6, C.8 and C.9 issued by the Opposite party. It is also admitted fact that the electric wires are passing through the land of the Complainant. According to the Complainant, he had raised sugar cane at 2.00 acres and in the version it is not denied. What is pleaded is that the sugar cane crop was not burnt due to electric mishap and setting fire to the crop himself false story is created to claim compensation. The Complainant has produced the R.T.C. as per Ex.R.7 for the year 2007-08, as per this entry the crop shown is ragi. But, the Village Accountant has issued certificate Ex.C.10 stating that for the year 2006-07, the Complainant has raised sugar cane crop. The Complainant has also produced the 3 photos Ex.C.11 and even the police have drawn the mahazar as per Ex.C.5. Apart from the Complainants son examined as C.W.1 one witness C.W.2 Sri.Ningegowda has also deposed about the crop of sugar cane in the land of the Complainant during the year 2007-08. Though, it is contended that Ex.C.7 shows the ragi crop, but the Village Accountant will not visit the spot and simply he will continue the entry of previous crops. But the evidence on record clearly proves that Complainant had grown sugar cane crop in 2 acres in his land during the year 2007-08. 9. Now, we have to consider whether the Complainant has proved that on account of sagging of wire due to blowing of heavy wind electric spark fire caught to the sugar cane crop. Since, the Opposite party has denied the same and taken the contention that the Complainant himself has put fire to the crop in order to claim compensation from the Opposite party. Further contention is that the Complainant has lodged a complaint to the police and not to the Opposite party to suppress the real fact. But, the Complainant has produced Ex.C.4 a copy of the complaint, wherein we find that endorsement is made for having received the complaint on 08.03.2008, but it is not signed by anybody. The Complainant is an illiterate putting LTM and we cannot expect, the Complainant to see whether the Officer who received the complaint has put the signature, since the endorsement is in English. The Complainant has also filed a complaint to the Basaralu Police Station as per Ex.C.3 and they have issued endorsement Ex.C.1 and have drawn the mahazar Ex.C.5 holding that due to the sagging of wire electric spark fire caught to the sugar cane crop and it was burnt. Even though, it is contended that in case of sagging of wire due to the two wires coming in contact automatically the fuses in the transformer will goes off and there will be no supply of electricity, but before that naturally the electricity would be flowing and due to sagging of wire and wires coming in contact due to wind, naturally the electric spark will come out. Therefore, it is proved that the sugar cane crop was burnt due to electric mishap. The main reason is sagging of the electric wires running on the land of the Complainant. Even though, the Opposite party has produced Ex.R.1 complaint register and we do not find entry of making complaint by a Complainant, but the Complainant has given the written complaint and therefore we do not find any entry in Ex.R.1. Even though, the Opposite party has produced the photo Ex.R.4 with report Ex.R.3, but it is subsequent to the incident i.e., on 02.07.2009 whereas the incident took place on 07.03.2008. Therefore, Ex.R.3 cannot be believed. As per the evidence of C.W.1 the sagging of wires were rectified by the Opposite party staff after the complaint. In the photo produced by the Complainant as per Ex.C.11, we find sagging of the wire in one photo. It is the bounden duty of the Opposite party to see that there is no sagging of wire anywhere and if action is not taken, it amounts to dereliction of duty and negligence and if it causes any damage to a person or property it amounts to deficiency in service. Though, the Opposite party has taken a stand that putting fire himself to the crop due to lesser price during the relevant time and no demand of buyer, the Complainant has created a story in order to claim compensation from the Opposite party, but no worthy of evidence is produced by the Opposite party to prove the same and even the materials on record established the same. The Complainant has proved in this case by sufficient materials that due to sagging of wire, the two wires coming in contact due to wind blow and on account of electric spark, the fire mischief occurred to the sugar cane crop of the Complainant. 10. The Complainant has contended that 2.00 acres of sugar cane crop was burnt and he sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/-. In the evidence of C.W.1 has deposed that they had grown fresh crop in 1.00 acre and ratoon crop in 1.00 acre. If we peruse three photos produced by the Complainant, it is very clear that the Complainant has harvested fresh crop of 1.00 acre, because the burnt crop in other photos are different to this photo. Further, in other two photos though we see the burnt sugar cane crop, if we see properly, it clearly reveals that it is a dried crop and not fully grown and it is weak crop. The Complainant has not adduced in evidence, regarding the yield of crop per acre and the rate of the sugar cane during the relevant period. Usually in summer period, the rate of sugar cane will be lesser and it has to be inferred due to summer the crop has dried due to scarcity of water as could be seen from the photos. Therefore, taking the yield of 20 tonnes for 1.00 acre at the rate of Rs.500/- in normal course, the Complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,000/- only and Opposite party is liable to pay the said compensation for the deficiency in service. 11. 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/- to the Complainant with cost of Rs.1,000/- within two months. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 24th day of August 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
