Per Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
1. This appeal is filed by MSEDCL through Assistant Engineer against the judgment and order dated 11.12.2008 passed by Dist.Forum Nanded in complaint case No.288/08. Present respondent is original complainant.
2. Background of this appeal in a nutshell is as under.
That, respondent/original complainant had obtained electric connection to his power pump installed on the borewell existed in Gut No.443 of village Berali(Bk.) Tq.Mukhed, Dist.Nanded. His consumer number is 568040052948. It was contended that during the year 2006-07 he had grown the sugarcane crop in the area admeasuring 60R in the said gut number. That sugarcane was at the maturity stage. It was further contended that during the night in between 24 & 25th Feb.2007 there was sparking on overhead electric wire which caused fire to the sugarcane crop and entire sugarcane alongwith 8 trees of sweet lime and 10 trees of mangos were burnt. He had also alleged that much before the said incidence the respondent vide his application dated 1.7.2006 had complained to the appellant that electric wires on the pole in his land had become loose and they should be repaired immediately. However it was neglected by the appellant which resulted in the said fire. Therefore he contended that it is due to deficiency in service on the part of appellant he had to bear the loss.
3. Immediately after incident of fire he intimated the same to the Police Station, Mukhed and FIR was lodged. The concern police officials visited the spot on 27.2.2007 and drawn the panchanama. Simultaneously he had intimated the incident of fire to the Tahasil Office, Mukhed. Accordingly Revenue Inspector Mukhed and concern Talathi visited the spot on 26.2.2008 and also made panchanama regarding damages caused due to the fire. It was contended by him that the loss which he had sustained due to said fire was to the tune of Rs.1 lakh i.e. Rs.51,000/- of the sugarcane, Rs.24,000/- of sweet lime trees and Rs.25,000/- of the mangos trees. Accordingly, he demanded the said compensation from the appellant. However it was neglected by the appellant and therefore he approached to the Dist.Forum seeking direction to the appellant electric company to pay him compensation of Rs.1 lakh with interest @ 18% from the date of fire. In addition it was requested to pay him Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5000/- as cost of the complaint.
4. Appellant appeared before the Forum and denied the entire claim of the respondent/complainant. It was submitted that at no time the respondent had made complaint regarding looseness of the electric wire on pole. It was also contended that said spot was inspected by Junior Engineer of the appellant and it was observed that there was no signs of sparking and said fire was not at all due to the sparking in the said electric line and therefore requested Dist.Forum to dismiss the said complaint.
5. Dist.Forum after going through the papers and hearing the parties passed the impugned judgment and order by which partly allowed the complaint and awarded compensation of Rs.48,200/- alongwith interest @ 9% from 25.8.2008 till the realisation of the entire amount alongwith Rs.5000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2000/- for the cost of the complaint.
6. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order present appeal is filed by this Commission by MSEDCL.
7. Notices were served on the respondent and matter was kept for admission hearing on 8.2.2012. Adv.Shri.Santosh Bhosle holding for Adv.Shri.S.P.Brahme remained present for the appellant whereas respondent Shri.Jayantrao Junne remained present in person. We heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as respondent Shri.Junne in person. It is submitted by learned counsel Shri.Bhosle that the Junior Engineer of the appellant company had visited the spot on 26.2.2007 and made panchanama which disclosed that there was sufficient distance between cable and there was no sign of sparking. Secondly it was contended that there was no evidence regarding number of trees ie. Sweet lime and it`s fruit bearing capacity. However Dist.Forum without considering all these facts on record has erroneously passed the judgment and order and awarded compensation. Therefore judgment and order passed by Dist.Forum be quashed and set aside.
8. We have carefully gone through the papers as well as argument as put forth by learned counsel for the appellant. From the perusal of the available record it is revealed that respondent has taken electric connection for the power pump on the borewell existed in his said land bearing Gut No.443 of village Berali(Bk.), Tq.Mukhed, Dist.Nanded. It is further revealed that the overhead wire of the electric poles from which electric connection was given to the said borewell were in loose state for which respondent No.1 also made complaint with the appellant vide application dated 1.7.2006 for the repairs. But it appears that no action was taken by the appellant which resulted in coming into contact of the those wires thereby creating sparking which further resulted into fire to the standing sugarcane. Documentary evidence such as panchanama as drawn by Revenue Inspector and police officials sufficiently proved that the standing sugarcane was burnt due to fire because of sparking of electric wires of the poles which caused damage to the respondent. Electric Inspector`s report dated 3.9.2007 also spell out that electric wire on the poles were loose and they were touching sugarcane due to which there was sparking and fire to the sugarcane resulting in the burning of entire sugarcane.
9. Appellant electric company on the basis of panchanama dated 26.2.2007 drawn by Junior Engineer has denied to have caused fire due to sparking of the electric wire of the pole. In fact Junior Engineer himself admitted in the said panchanama that the electric wire of the pole were in a loose state. There is no other counter evidence produced by appellant against he claim of the respondent/complainant and thus the claim of the complainant is sufficiently proved. Appellant company should have settled the claim of the respondent regarding compensation of damages caused to the respondent. However by denying the claim appellant company has committed deficiency in service.
10. In view of the aforesaid observation the Dist.Forum has rightly held appellant company as liable. Loss of sugarcane assessed by Dist.Forum also appears to be proper and reasonable, except that it has not accounted the expected returns of the burnt sugarcane which are mentioned to be at 20% of the total value of sugarcane by Dist.Forum. We are therefore of the view to disallow 20% compensation towards burnt sugarcane and accordingly assessed the compensation as under;
Rs.48,220 - 8220/-(20% of Rs.48,200/-) = Rs.39,880/-
Say – Rs.39,800/-.
Hence we pass the following order by modifying the Clause No.2 of the Dist.Forum`s order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. Appellant is directed to pay to the respondent within a period of 30 days a compensation of Rs.39,800/- instead of Rs.48,200/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from 25.8.2008 till realisation of the entire amount.
3. Rest of the order is maintained.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
