Karnataka

Bidar

CC/56/2015

Vaijinath S/o Chandrappa Taranalli - Complainant(s)

Versus

GESCOM Bidar - Opp.Party(s)

G.S. Chiklinge Adv.

28 Jan 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                                 C.C.No. 56/2015

 

                                                                                                  Date of filing : 01/08/2015

 

                                                                                             Date of disposal : 28/01/2017

 

 

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:         Vaijinath, s/o Chandrappa Taranalli,

                                           Age: 65 years, R/o village Honnaddi,

                                            Tq. & Dist.Bidar.

 

              

 

 

                                         (By Shri. G.S.Chiklinge., Advocate )

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-            1.   Gulbarga Eelectricity Supply Company,

                                              Represented by its Executive Engineer, Bidar. 

                                             

                                        2.   Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company,

                                              Represented by its Section Officer,

                                              Markunada, Tq. & Dist.Bidar.

 

                                           3.   Gulbarga Electricity Suppl;y Company,

                                                  Represented by its Managing Director,

                                                  Station road,Gulbarga.

 

  

 

 

                                          ( By Shri. Mahesh. S.Patil,Advocate)   

 

 

                                                

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

                      This   complaint filed by the above said complainant U/s.12 of the C.P.Act., 1986, against the O.Ps alleging deficiency in service  on the part of O.Ps.   The subject of the case is as under:

 

2.         Complainant is owner of land Sy.no.42/2 measuring 4 acres, situted at village Bagdal Tq, and Dist.Bidar.  The complainant grew sugarcane crop in his land  and the plantation  of sugarcane had  was at harvest stage.  The O.P.no.1, to 3 have installed poles in his land and which were passed over the land of the complainant and the complainant also had obtained power supply from the poles. He had dug bore well and installed I.P. set to the bore well in his land and obtained the power supply from the O.P.no.2. 

 

3.                 On 01/04/2014 at about 12:15 p.m. due to heavy wind and overlapping of the electricity wires, ignition took place and the sugarcane crop well grown in 3 acres was burnt.  Thereafter, the complainant had filed complaint before the Bagdal Police Station and the concerned police have enquired the matter and conducted panchanama.  The complainant avers that, the sugarcane grown by him in the area of 3 acres was supposed to render overage yield of  it 50 tons per acre.  Total yield calculated at and at the rate of cane 150 tons ( 2014), the value of burnt sugarcane would be assessed at  Rs.3,00,000/- and hence the complainant sustained loss to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/-, due to electrocution and the O.P.s were not diligent  in maintaining the electric poles. Hence, the complainant filed the complaint before this Forum for claiming compensation and costs.

 

 

4.            On receipt of the Court notice, O.P.no 1 ,2 & 3 have  appeared through their counsel and filed their written versions  in detail interalia claiming that, the complaint filed by the complainant was factually and legally not correct and it is not maintainable since the complainant is not Consumer of opponents as defined under the Act.  Even the complainant had not stated in his complaint that he was the consumer of opponents and was consuming electricity.  Therefore when the complainant is not the consumer, his complaint before this Forum is not maintainable and he should approach the competent Civil Court to claim damages if any.  Though he claims that he was having electricity supply to his bore well, but not furnished R.R. number of installation provided to the I.P. Set.   In reply to the averments made in para no.1 of the complaint, the O.Ps. have not disputed that the complainant is an agriculturist, perhaps owning land Sy.no.42/2 measuring 4 acres of Bagdal Tq.Bidar.  But it is denied that the complainant had dug bore well and installed I.P. set and obtained power supply from the respondent Company, since the complainant has not furnished the R.R.number of his installation so as to enable the opponent Company to verify the same and agree with his contention that he is Consumer. 

 

5.      The O.Ps have further denied that the contention of the complainant made in para no.2 to 4 of the complaint to the effect that the complainant had made improvements in  his land and had planted sugarcane during 2013-14 and there was fire due to overlapping of live electric wire running over his land.  The O.P Company avered that the alleged incident was not due to any negligence on the part of the O.Ps, but perhaps, it occurred due to some foul play of the complainant while making attempt to illegally draw electric energy by directly hooking to the wire, since the live electric wire was well maintained and there was no wind or rain on the alleged date so as to believe that such incident took place.  The complainant himself is responsible for the alleged incident and the panchanama conducted by the police does not show any negligence on the part of the O.Ps.  The allegation made in para no.5 and 6 of the complaint is false and without any basis.  The complainant has not at all suffered any loss, as alleged, this claim made by the complainant is exorbitant and uncalled for.   There is no relationship of Consumer and trader or service provider between the complainant and respondent Company and the complainant is not Consumer as defined under the Act. He had no cause of action to file the complaint and this Forum has not got jurisdiction to decide the case, and award damages and the complainant has to seek his remedy in the competent civil Court.  Therefore the complaint may be dismissed with compensatory costs.  At a later stage, the opponents have taken a stand that, the complainant has supplied sugar cane to M/s NSSK ltd. and he had sustained a loss of only 16.612 M.T. of the crop.

 

6.          Both sides, have filed their evidence affidavits along with documents, written arguments reiterating their respective stands, so also documents listed at the end of this order, distinctly.

 

 

7.         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 Opponents?
2. Do the opponent prove that, the complainant has not sustained loss to the extent claimed?
3. What order ?

 

 

 

8.           Our answers to the points stated above are as following to the following:-

 

               1. In the affirmative.

               2. In the affirmative in part.

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

 

 

                                                                                                       :: REASONS ::

9.                     Point No 1 and 2 are intertwined and are to be answered together notwithstanding the fact that, the opponents have claimed the complainant a non-consumer and hence not entitled to maintain the present complainant, we see Ex.P6, a feasibility/service certificate issued by the GESCOM date: 19.06.2014 denoting power supply to the complainant vide R.R.NO.AIDIP-96, date of service 10.12.1996.  Hence, the contentions of the opponents that, the complainant was an electricity stealer and not a bonafide consumer is ruled out.

 

10.                   Per contra, the documents submitted by the complainant vide Ex.P.1 to P.5 prove beyond doubt a that, factually there was an electrical fire accident causing damages to the sugar cane crop fully grown by the complainant in his agriculture land.  In the Panchanama (Ex.P.1) the damage has been stated to have been to the extent of Rs. 81,000/-.  We observe from the photos vide Ex.P.3 to P.4 that, the grown up crop has been partially burnt.  Hence, it is crystal clear that, the crops of the consumer were partially burnt and not wholly.  The documents produced by the opponent prove that, the complainant had sold the crops to M/S NSSK Ltd. and from Ex.R.3 it is revealed that, the total yield of the complainant was 43.797 M.T. out of which cane of 16.612 M.T. was found to be burnt.  In Ex.R.5 the rate of cane per M.T. has been fixed @ Rs.1650/-.  Albeit, the procurer had deducted a sum of Rs. 6583/- for the burnt crop, the complainant is entitled for reimbursement of the total loss of 16.612 M.T. of sugar cane @ Rs.1650/- per M.T. which works out to be Rs.27,409/- rounded of to Rs.27,400/- and hence we calculate the loss as stated supra.  There has been no serious dispute to the contentions of the opponents from the complainants’ as to whether he has cultivated and grown sugarcane in any alternative lands of him and had supplied cane to M/S NSSK Ltd. grown in lands other than Sy.No.42/2 of Bagdal village, Tq. and Dist: Bidar. where fore , we pass the following.

 

:: ORDER ::

 

   

1.  The complaint is allowed in part.
2.  The opponents are directed to reimburse a sum of Rs. 27,400/- towards partial crop loss of the complainant.
3. Office to provide free copies to litigants .

 

 

           d)  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 28^th day of  January-2017 )

 

 

 

 

                 Sd/-                                                                                   Sd/-

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                                   

       Member.                                                                   President.

                                                                                     

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1-Panchanama Date: 01.04.2014.
2. Ex.P.2- copy of complaint Date: 01.04.2014.
3. Ex.P.3&4- Photos(02).
4. Ex.P.5- Copy of R.T.C.
5. Ex.P.6- copy of Feasibility (Service certificate issued by OP-2 .
6. Ex.P.7- copy of Voter Identity card..

 

 Document produced by the Opponent/s

 

1. Ex.R.1-Copy of letter addressed to GESCOM Kamthatna by complaint.
2. Ex.R.2- Copy cane weighment S.T.P (3 Sheets).
3. Ex.R.3- Letter of M/S NSSK Ltd, Bidar to GESCOM.
4. Ex.R.4- Tonnage report of M/S NSSK Ltd.
5. Ex.R.5- Account statement of NSSK Ltd. in respect of cultivator/
                  Complainant.

 

 

 

              Sd/-                                                                                   Sd/-

Sri. Shankrappa H.,                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                                  

       Member.                                                                   President.

          

mv.