Karnataka

Bidar

CC/68/2015

Channabasappa S/o Sharnappa Jyotiba - Complainant(s)

Versus

GESCOM Bidar - Opp.Party(s)

P.M.Deshpande Adv.

30 May 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                                 C.C.No. 68/2015

 

                                                                                                  Date of filing : 02/09/2015

 

                                                                                             Date of disposal : 30/05/2017

 

 

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:            Chanbasappa, s/o Sharnappa Jyotiba,

                                              Age: 70 years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                              R/o Halhalli, Tq.Bhalki,Dist.Bidar.,

                                                           

              

 

 

                                          (By Shri. Deshpande P.M., Advocate)

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-               1. The Executive Engineer, 

                                                  GESCOM, Bidar.

                                                         

                                           2. Section Officer,

              GESCOM Office, Byalhalli,

              Tq.Bhalki, Dist.Bidar.

 

                                     

 

                                          ( By Shri. Mahesh. S. Patil, 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.Ps. The sum total of his allegations are as follows:-

 

2.          The complainant is an agriculturist by profession.  He had developed his agriculture land and  has planted sugar cane by investing huge amount in his land Sy.no. 89/2A measuring 4Acre  8Guntas at village Halhalli, Tq.Bhalki,Dist.Bidar and sugarcane was grown in a stretch of Ac. 2.20 guntas of land.  The complainant avers that, on 28/05/2015, due to snapping of live electric wires the fire took place and the entire crop of sugar cane of 9 months grown   were burnt and he sustained heavy loss to the tune of Rs.8,00,000/-.   Even after the incident the O.P. had not removed the pole.  Thereafter, the incident was reported to the concerned police station, Revenue department, GESCOM.  The incident took place due to negligence in the part of the O.P. in not maintaining the electric line.  Hence the complainant is before this Forum.

 

3.            After receipt of the Court’s notice the O.Ps have appeared before this Forum.  The O.P. no.1 has filed the written version stating that,  the complaint filed by the complainant is totally misconceived both in law and on facts and  is not maintainable.  The complaint in the present form is not maintainable, since the complainant is not the consumer of O.Ps as defined under the Act.   Hence, the complainant should approach the competent Civil Court to claim damages if any.  The O.P Company specifically denies the contention of the complainant made in para no.2 to the effect that he has developed his land and              planted sugarcane during the year 2014-15 and expected income of            Rs. 8,00,000/-.  The complainant has not produced any records showing that the land was wet or irrigated land and even he has not shown the source or mode of irrigation and even he has not produced any record to show that he is consuming electricity from the O.Ps for irrigation of his land.  On the other hand from the copy of RTC extract produced and relied upon by the complainant, it could be seen that his land is dry   therefore, when the land is classified and shown in government record as dry land, the question of his planting sugarcane does not arise hence, the complainant has filed a false and concocted complaint.  The allegation made in para no.3 of the complaint is false and wrong and O.Ps. deny the same.  The allegation that there was electric fire in the field damaging the entire sugarcane causing loss of Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant, there was no such incident of fire and damage to the alleged sugarcane crop in the field of the complainant.   The complainant has not clarified in his complaint that, how the complaint become consumer of the O.P. Company hence, the complainant is not the consumer of O.Ps as defined under the Act.  The O.P. further stated that the complainant has not made party to the proceeding the Managing Director  of the  respondent Company.  Hence, the complaint is not maintainable and the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

 

4.              Both sides were heard at length.

 

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

 

1.  Whether the complainant can be termed as a consumer of the O.P.?

 

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

 

3. What order ?

 

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

 

1. In the affirmative.
2. In the affirmative.

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

 

                                                                                         :: REASONS ::

7. Point no.1:   On the face of the blunt denial of the O.P regarding the status of the complainant, first and foremost for us is to find out as to whether the complainant be termed as a consumer.  To consider this point before us, is a decision of Hon’ble National Commission, reported in IV (2008) CPJ-139 (NC)-CGM,P&O NPDCL & ors. V/s Koppu Duddarajan & ors, in which it was held that,

 

“ Villagers pay taxes to village Panchayat and power consumption charges to electricity companies.  Hence, they are consumers”.

 

Apart from the above, we observe that, the O.P. Corporation is a creature of the state legislature and maintained out of the corpus of the state Government, formed to ensure proper and safe transmission of electrical power to the citizenry at large.  It would be then a traversty of truth to deny the poor complainant of his status as a defacto consumer and hence we answer this point accordingly.

 

8.   Point No.2:-  The complainant herein, has produced numerous documents along with his complaint.  Out of the same only documents marked as Ex.P.1 to P.13 and P.22 appear to be relevant to this proceedings.  The rest are nothing but childish pranks and hence garbaged out from consideration.

 

9.                Ex.P.1 is a representation dt. 27/10/2014 by the complainant to the O.P. corporation describing the unsafe condition of the electrical transmission line running over his field.  We see therein, a higher officer had directed the section officer concerned to set the anomalies right.  Had the direction been implemented, the present fire accident would not have occurred a all.  The apathy of the de-fending corporation is glaring at the face.  Next we see the Ex.P.2 an intimation of the jurisdictional Dhannura Police Station dt. 30/05/2015 to the Tahasildar regarding fire accident and crop loss  in the field of the complainant, and registration of F.A.no.3/15.  Ex. P.3 and P.4 are panchanamas and further witness statement of the case in course of the investigation, which equivocally supports the allegations of the complainant.  Additionally we see from Ex.P.5, the Chief Engineer of the Corporation has directed the concerned Executive Engineer, Bidar to ascertain the loss of the complainant, but there is no evidence from the O.Ps side that, it was acted upon.

 

 10.               Ex.P.8 to P.13 and P.22 evidence the transmission line over the field of the complainant, partial crop loss due to burning and Ex.P.13 specifically proves snappiong of the electirc wire, in which even a dog had died due to electrocution.  The fallen wire is apparent in photograph.

 

11.                 The complainant has relied upon a Judgment of the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh Stat4e Commission, reported in II (2009) CPJ 391 A.P. Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd. & Anr. V/s G. Subbarama Naidu, where in it has been held as below:-

 

Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Section 2(1)(g) and 14 (1)(d)—Electricity—Live wire snapped—Fell on sugarcane crop of complainant-Entire crop burnt-Deficiency in service on part of Electricity Board proved-Compensation awarded by Forum-Hence appeal-Live wire snapped due to heavy rain, gale and wind proved-contention regarding Act of God not acceptable-Board having laid 11 KV electric line bound to maintain it—In case of negligence they are bound to compensate the party who sustained loss-order of Forum upheld.

 

Nothing has been canvassed by the O.Ps to counter vent this ratio.

 

12.                Therefore, we conclude that, the O.Ps have even defied their own senior most officer ( Ex.P.5 ) to ascertain the loss and compensate the complainant and undeniably have resorted to deficiency of service and answer the point accordingly.

 

13. Point No.3 :-  No doubt, the complainant has raised claims for a lorry load of relief in his complaint.  His claims in para-2 of the complaint are mindbungling and not supported by any cogent proof.  For the relief(s) claimed therein, he may approach a Civil Court if so advised.  We shall but, confine ourselves to ascertain the value of his crop loss and award compensation for the same.

 

14.                Pondering over that aspect, we confine our range and gaze at the contents of his document Ex.P.14, which was filed by him at the earliest opportunity on 29/07/2015 to the Zill Panchayath authorities.  Therein, he has assessed his loss at Rs. 1,45,000/-.  The assessement appears  to be belief inspiring without being influenced by any extraneous after thoughts and opining that, the complainant deserves that much, we proceed to pass the following:-

 

:: ORDER ::

 

   

  The complaint is allowed in part.

 

1.  The O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to reimburse a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- together with 12% interest p.a. calculated from the date of fire accident i.e. 28/05/2015 till the date of realisation.
2. The O.Ps. are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agonies and sufferings together with a sum of Rs.5000/- 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 30^th day of  May-2017 )

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                            

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1- Letter addressed to GESCOM by complainant.
2. Ex.P.2-   Letter addressed to Tahsildar, Bhlki by complainant.
3. Ex.P.3-  Copy of Spot Mahazar.
4. Ex.P.4- Copy of Statement of Eranna, s/o Kanchappa.
5. Ex.P.5- Letter addressed to Executive Engineer by Chief Engineer,Kalburgi.
6. Ex.P.6- RTC.
7. Ex.P.7-Copy of Khata/ Copy of Patta Book.
8. Ex.P.8 to P.13 Photo copies (06)
9. Ex.P.14- Letter addressed to Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Panchayat,Bidar,by complainant
10. Ex.P.15- Letter addressed to President ,Zilla Panchayat,Bidar, by complainan.
11. Ex.P.16 –Letter addressed to Tahsildar,Bhalki by complainant dt.28/05/2015.
12. Ex.P.17- Letter addressed to Tahsildar,Bhalki by complainant dt.14/05/2015.
13. Ex.P.18- Letter addressed to President, Zilla Panchayat,Bidar.
14. Ex.P.19-Another letter addressed to President, Zilla Panchayat,Bidar by complainant.
15. Ex.P.20-Copy of letter addressed to Tahsildar,Bhalki,by complainant,dt.20/06/2015.
16. Ex.P21- Letter addressed to Tahsildar,Bhalki, dt. 28/05/2015 by complainant.
17. Ex.P.22- Photograph (01 )
18. Ex.P.23- Letter addressed to Women & Child Development and Sr.Citizen and Kannada & Sanskrat State Minister.
19. Ex.P. 24-Copy of Comments.
20. Ex.P.25- Letter addressed to Deputy Commissioner, Bidar by complainant

 

 

 Documents produced by the Opponent/s

 

                Nil

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                                  

       Member.                                                                      President.

 

           

mv.