Karnataka

Bidar

CC/37/2016

Hanmanthappa s/o Bheemanna Burjin - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer Electricitry supply company - Opp.Party(s)

Rajkumar K

23 May 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                                 C.C.No. 37/2016

 

                                                                                                  Date of filing : 16/06/2016

 

                                                                                              Date of disposal : 23/05/2017

 

P R E S E N T:-                    (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                       (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

 

                                   

                                               

COMPLAINANT/S:      Shri. Hanmanthappa, S/o Bhimanna Burjin,                          

                                     Age: 68 years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                       Village Vithalpur,Tq.Humnabad,

                                         Dist. Bidar.

           

             

                                    (By Shri. Rajkumar K., Advocate)

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-               The Executive Engineer, GESCOM,

                                          Tq. Humnabad,Dist.Bidar.

                                   

 

                                        (By Shri.  R.K. Ganure, Advocate )  

 

                                               

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

                    This is a complaint file by the above said complainant U/s.12 of the C.P.Act., 1986, against the O.P alleging  deficiency in service . The gist of the case is as under:

 

2.          The complainant avers that, he was owning two bullocks and one  Cow.  The complainant was dependent on the said cattle for his livelihood and family maintenance.   On 18/07/2015 at about  04.30 p.m. the complainant took his cattle near the Meenakera for grazing   .  The two Bullock and one Cow came into contact with the land surrounding the GESCOM Transformer (T.C.) in the process of grazing and the said cattle died on the spot due to electrocution as the gay wire had touched the transmission line and there was flow of electricity to the ground.  Thereafter the complainant had filed a complaint before the Bemalkheda Police Station and registered  case as C.No. 42/2015.  The police concerned visited the spot and registered the case and conducted Panchanama of the dead Bullock and Cow.  In this regard the Veterinary Doctor  had conducted the Post mortem examination and report has been issued to Taluka Executive Magistrate in respect of dead Bullocks and Cow of the complainant.  The said Doctor has opined and confirmed that, the death of Bullocks and Cow were due to electric shock and he has further opined the  value of the  Bullocks and Cow  in a  total  sum of  Rs. 1,25,000/-.   The death of the Bullocks and Cow of the complainant had taken place due to the negligence and deficiency of service in the part of the O.P.  

 

3.           The complainant avers that, the Bullocks were very young and healthy, they were useful to him for his agriculture.  The complainant was earning Rs.1,000/-per day from the work of  agriculture with the help of the Bullocks and he was earning Rs. 200/- per day  after selling the milk of the cow.  Due to death of the cattle, the complainant suffered loss of income as well as suffered mental agonies. The complainant on 14/06/2016 has given an application to the O.P. for compensation in respect of death of his cattle due to electrocution and due to negligence of the O.P.  The O.P. after receiving the application  neither given  any compensation nor given  reply to the application.  Hence the complainant is before this Forum.

 

 

4.             The O.P. putting up appearances has filed versions questioning the jurisdiction of this Forum to try the case.  Further the O.Ps claim that, new power(s) has been conferred upon the Tahasildar and Deputy Commissioner of Bidar by the Govt. (Sic-no such documents produced) to pay the compensation and further that, the complainant has not informed the Electrical inspectorate as provided for U/sec. 161 of Indian Electricity Act, 2003 or Sec. 33 of the Electricity Act, 1910.  The O.P further claims that, the complainant is not a consumer and there is no negligence on the part of the O.P. and the O.P. is not liable to pay the compensation for the said alleged incident.  The O.P. has denied that the owner of the Ox and Calf as the complainant has not submitted the bill or receipt from whom he was purchased the same.  The O.P. further avers,  the complainant has filed false complaint by colluding with the police.  There was no death of any animal due to electrocution and no case has been registered by the Police against the O.P. as per the IPC .   The Police   has not issued FIR or filed Charge sheet against the O.P.  In the absence of FIR or charge sheet this complaint is not maintainable.  Hence there is no negligence on the part of the O.P. Company and hence, this Complaint may be dismissed with the costs.  The complainant has filed written arguments and documents detailed at the end of the order, whereas the O.P. has not argued the case in spite of several opportunities.

  

5.         Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-

 

1. Does the complainant prove that, he is a consumer under the O.P?

 

2. Does the complainant prove that, there has been a deficiency of service in the part of the Opponents?

 

3. What order ?

 

 

6.           Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

 

               1. In the affirmative.

               2. In the affirmative.

                4. As per final orders due to the following:-

 

 

:: REASONS ::

 

7. Point No.1      In the face of the steep opposition, the question primus-enter-pares before us is to determine the status of the complainant vis-a-vis the opponent.

 

8.               The Hon’ble National Commission in a Judgment reported in IV (2008) CPJ-139 ( NC)- CGM P & O NPDCL & ors. v/s Koppu Duddarajan & Anr. has been pleased to hold that:

 

“Villagers pay taxes to Village Panchayat & power consumption charges to electricity companies”.  Hence they are consumers.  Nothing has been canvassed by the opponent to counter the ratio aforesaid.  Fur;ther, we may infer that, the O.P. M/s GESCOM, is a state instrumentality, created by the state legislature and draws it’s corpus from the state Govt. to maintain and supply energy to the citizenry at large.  Keeping the factual position at parlance, we have no hesitation to hold that, the complainant is a defacto consumer of the opponent and we answer the point accordingly.

 

         9.  Point No.2:- Documents produced by the complainant vide Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7, conclusively prove that, the cattle(s) of the complainant had died by electrocution in the process of grazing since there was passing of electricity through the Gay wire installed with the Transformer.  Excepting a bald denial of the incident and allegation of collusion with the police in registering the case, the O.P. has not chosen to lead any effective evidence to upset the claim of the complainant.  The lacklustre denial of the O.P. in no manner helps it’s perfunctory contention.  Further more, the Hon’ble National Commission in other Judgements reported in 2009 CTJ 643(CP) NCDRC and III (2010) CP 198 ( NC) has been pleased to hold as follows:-                                                                                           

“Electric Co.s transmitting energy, duty bound to maintain and ensure safety and security of persons, animals and other objects and when exposed wires cause damages, the servie provider to compensate losses”.

 

In the instant case, the fact remains, had the opponent been diligent in it’s duties, there was no scope the gay wire  coming into contact with the transmission line to cause earthing.  Therefore, the truth is glaring at the face.  There is a clear cut deficiency of service and we answer the point no.2 in affirmative.

 

10.  Point No.3:-   Delving to answer this point, despite  the tall claims made by the complainant, we have to refer to two decisions rendered by the Hon’ble National Commission reported in 2013 (1) CPR 510 (NC) and III (2013) CP 377 (NC), in both of which, it has been mandated that, the cost of cattle assessed by the Veterinarian should be the adequate yard stick to fix compensation in case of loss of cattle.

 

11.             In the present case, post mortems were conducted on the corpses by the Department of Animal husbandry on the next day of the incident, where in, the cause of death has been attributed to electrocution (Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.5) and the valuation(s) have been estimated at Rs. 35,000/- + Rs. 45,000/- + Rs. 45000/- respectively, thus assessing the total loss to be Rs. 1,25,000/- (Rupees one lakh & twenty five thousand) only.  Thence, we hold the figure stated supra to be compensated by the O.P. and proceed to pass the following.

 

:: ORDER ::

 

   

1.  The O.P. is hereby directed to compensate the complainant in a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- together with an interest @ 12% p.a. calculated from  the date of the death of cattle i.e. 18/07/2015 till the date of realisation.
2. The O.P. is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/-as compensation towards loss of wealth, sufferings and mental agonies under gone, coupled with equal sum towards litigation expenses.

 

 

           c)  Four weeks time is granted to comply the order.  

 

 

( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 23^rd   day of  May-2017 )

 

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                            

 

 

 

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1- F.I.R. and complaint.   
2. Ex.P.2- Spot Mahazar.
3. Ex.P.3-to 5- Post mortem reports.
4. Ex.P.6-Demand notice of complainant.
5. Ex.P.7-color photo of the dead cattle(s).

 

 Document produced by the Opponent

 

                        Nil  

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

       Member.                                                                      President.

 

 

mv.