Karnataka

Bidar

CC/83/2015

Sri. Sharanappa S/o Devappa. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer GESCOM - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Rajkumar Adv.

18 Mar 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                                 C.C.No. 83/2015

 

                                                                                                  Date of filing : 20/11/2015

 

                                                                                             Date of disposal : 18/03/2017

 

 

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. Sharnappa, S/o Devappa Bedara,

                                              Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                              R/o Changlera,Tq.Humnabad,

                                              Dist.Bidar.

 

              

 

 

                                          (By Shri. Rajkumar K., Advocate)

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-               The Executive Engineer, 

                                              GESCOM, 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 filed by the above said complainant U/s.12 of the C.P.Act., 1986, against the O.P. The sum total of his allegations are as follows:-

 

 

2.          The complainant is an agriculturist by profession, owning two bullocks which he used to let  graze in his own land every day     Complainant avers that, on  19-07-2015 in the morning  while the bullocks of the complainant were grazing in the land, the live electric S.T. line wire was cut down from the pole and fell on the ground and one bullock which was grazing in the land, coming into contact to the live electric wire died on the spot due to electrocution.   Thereafter the complainant informed the incident to the concerned police who registered the case in F.A. no.1/2015 and got  conducted Post-Mortem examination and conducted panchanama prior to that.  It is confirmed from the P.M. report that, the bullock of the complainant died due to electrocution.   The complainant further avers said bullock was nine years old, quite healthy and most useful for his income, being instrumental for agricultural operation.  The complainant used to earn Rs.1,000/-per day by using the bullock.  The value of the bullock was claimed as  Rs.75,000/- .  It is further said that, the snapping of the wire was due to negligence of the O.P., The complainant further states that, he had approached the O.P. for compensation  but the O.P. had not did not heeded the request of the complainant.  Therefore he is before this Forum claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

 

3.               The O.P. putting up appearances has filed versions.  Therein the O.P. has stated that, the complaint filed by the complainant is totally misconceived both in law and on facts and it is not maintainable.   Para no. 1 of the complaint is   completely denied by   the     O.P. The complainant has neither got electricity connection nor submitted any electricity bill paid to the O.P.  As per definition of the consumer protection act, this complaint is not maintainable and this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint.  Complaint’s para no.2 & 3 of are denied by the O.P.  No service was provided by the O.P. to the complainant.  The complainant by colluding with the police and other officers got registered a false case against the O.P and the complainant not at all submitted any documents and receipt with regard to purchase of the bullock by whom and not submitted any documents with regard of  value of the bullock and cost of the bullock   Rs. 75,000/- is denied by the O.P. 

 

4.                 In reply to para no.4 and 5 of the complaint, getting income daily of Rs.1,000/- is false and denied.  The compensation claimed for Rs.1,00,000/- is exaggerated one and there is no negligence on the part of the O.P. as such.  As the complainant is not a consumer, this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.  The contents of para no. 6 to 9 is false and denied by the O.P.  In case of death of bullock due to electrocution, there is a circular passed by the KEB Board Order            no. KEB/B7/ASB/89/VOL.II of dt.20^th Nov.1991 the order is binding to Courts and officers.  As per the order, the  amount cannot be paid   more than   the amount shown in the  chart   to the concerned persons or owner of the any cattle or  any animals and the complainant has not filed the report from the cattle market or concerned authority of the cattle market with regard to age wise value of the bullock hence, this complaint be dismissed with cost against O.P.

 

5.               Both the sides have filed their evidence affidavits and written arguments reiterating their respective contentions and documents relied upon as described at the end of the order.

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

1.  

2. What order ?

 

 

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

 

               1.   In the affirmative.

               2. As per the final order, for the following:

 

                                                                                         :: REASONS ::

8. Point no.1:   In the instant case, the complainant by cogent evidences produced before us vide Ex.P.1 to P.5 has amply proven that, factually his bullock has died due to electrocution, coming in touch with a live cut wire from the transmission line maintained by the O.P.  Though a feeble attempt has been made by the O.P. in it’s versions and evidence affidavit denying the liability as no F.I.R. or charge sheet was ever filed against the O.P., it cannot be made responsible for the electrical accident.  Furthe it has been canvassed that, there is certain circular vide order no.KEB/B7/ASB/89 Vol II of 20/11/1991, limiting the liability of the K.E.B. in case of animals dying  due to electrocution, no such circular was ever produced before us.  The jusidictional Bemalkheda Police station on the very day of the accident (Ex.P.1) and registering the case as accident case no. 01/2015, the police has drown spot mahazar on the same day (Ex.P.2) and has subjected the caracass to post-mortem examination (Ex.P.4.  The veterinarian has clearly traced the cause of death due to electrocution and has estimated the value of the bullock as Rs.75,000/-.  The evidences led before us are trustworthy and belief inspiring and we also refer two decisions of higher Fora, reported in

 

                      2009 CTJ 643 (C.P.) NCRDC

                        III ( 2010 ) CPJ 198 ( N.C.)

 

In both the decisions it was decided that,

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

 

             The two decisions quoted above clinches the issue in hand and we hold that, the O.P. has committed deficiency of service by not responding to the complainants urgings vide Ex.P.5.  We therefore answer the Point no.1 in the affirmative.

 

9. Point no.2:- Even though the complainant has claimed a sum of             Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation, from the statements of his own, witnesses, the value of the bullock appears to be Rs.75,000/-.  The Veterinarian also has affirmed the same in the P.M. report.  In two other decisions i.e. 2013 (I) (CPR  510 (NC) and III  (2013 CPJ 377 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to rule that, the cost assessed by the Veterinarian is to be awarded.  There is no counter arguments to that effect form the O.P’s side.  Hence we proceed to pass the following:     

 

 

 

 

:: ORDER ::

 

 

 

   

  The complaint is allowed in part.

 

1.  The O.P. is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards the cost of the bullock to the complainant together with an interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of electrical accident i.e. 19/07/2015 till the date of realisation.
2. The  Opponent would further pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation and a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

 

              c)  Four weeks time granted to comply this order.

 

 

( Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 18^th day of  March-2017 )

 

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                             

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1- Acknowledged copy of police complaint
2. Ex.P.2-   Spot Mahazar.
3. Ex.P.3-  Statement of Ashok s/o Sharnappa before police.
4. Ex.P.4- Post -mortem report
5. Ex.P.5- Acknowledged copy of representationto the O.P.

 

 

 Documents produced by the Opponent/s

 

                -Nil-

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                                  

       Member.                                                                      President.

 

           

mv.