FA No.119/2008 against CC.No.74/2007 District Consumer Forum-II,Tirupati.

Between:

1.The Chairman,

   A.P.Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.

   Renigunta Road, Tirupati.

2.The Assistant Divisional Engineer,

   Rural, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Srikalahasti.

…Appellants/Opp.Parties.

And

G.Subbarama Naidu, S/o.Veerappa Naidu,

Aged 85 years, Farmer, Madibaka Village,

Yerpedu Mandal, Chittoor District.

…Respondent/Complainant.

Counsel for the Appellant                  : Mr.V.Ajay Kumar.

Counsel for the Respondent             : Mr.G.Ramaiah Pillai.

QUORUM:  THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, HON’BLE PRESIDENT,

AND

SMT.M.SHREESHA,HON’BLE LADY MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JANUARY,

TWO THOUSAND NINE.

Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Mr.Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

*******

1.         This is an appeal preferred by the Electricity Board aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati, in directing it to pay Rs.45,000/- towards damages and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.

2.         The case of the complainant in brief is that he was a small farmer.  He installed 5 HP tube well electric connection under service No.44 in his field.  He raised sugarcane crop by utilizing power for irrigating his land, through which a 11 KV electric line was passing.  While so, on 16.10.2006 at about 2.00 p m a live wire was cut and fell on his agricultural field.  The entire crop was burnt.  Immediately on information the officials of the Electricity Board came and restored the line.  On report, the Fire Station Officer had extinguished the fire.  In all he had sustained a damage of Rs.90,000/- towards loss of crop.  He gave legal notice claiming the amount, for which the Board gave reply admitting that the live wire was cut, however rectified the same.  Since the Board did not pay any amount towards damages, he claimed Rs.1,70,000/- towards damages, comprising of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of burnt sugarcane crop, Rs.20,000/- towards medical treatment and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and costs of Rs.2,000/-.

3.         The appellants Electricity Board resisted the case. While admitting that on 16.10.2006 there was a heavy rainfall and thunder and the rain was recorded by the Tahsildar of Yerpedu Mandal, alleged that though the wire had fallen on the field, there was no damage to the crop.  The complainant has to prove as to the damage that was caused to his crop.  He fabricated the documents and filed the case.  He was not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit and got Exs.A.1 to A.11 marked, while the opposite parties filed Exs.B.1 to B.3. 

5.         The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the electric wire was snapped, fell on the sugar cane crop and damaged the crop.  It opined that the crop worth Rs.45,000/- was damaged.  Accordingly, it awarded compensation together with costs.

6.         Aggrieved by the said decision, the Electricity Board preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not consider Ex.B.1 certificate issued by the Tahsildar.  The complainant was not a consumer and there was no negligence on their part.  It prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

7.         The point that arises for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of appellants and whether it was liable to pay compensation? 

8.         It is an undisputed fact that the complainant owns Ac.1.75 cents of land and that he raised sugarcane crop in the said filed.  It is not in dispute that he availed electric connection, evidenced under Ex.A.1 passbook.  It is also not in dispute that on 16.10.2006 there was heavy rain and gale and wind due to which the electric wire snapped and fell on the sugarcane crop raised by the complainant.  The same was gutted.  He raised sugarcane crop and that the same was damaged due to the snap of electric wire was certified by the Station Fire Officer, evidenced under Ex.A.5 and the Village Secretary of Madibaka Gram Panchayat, evidenced under Ex.A.4, besides the representation of the ryots.  It is not as though the Board denies the accident.  It admits in its reply Ex.A.9 sent through its counsel admitting in the following lines:

“My clients further represent that after the information of fire accident the Asst.Engineer rushed to the spot and found that the 11 K.V. line was cut and fallen on the ground.  The line was restrung with the help of field staff by 3.00 p.m. on the same day.  By the time the fire was stopped by the villagers.  It is false to state that the entire crop was damaged.  Your client has not produced any record to show that Govt. agricultural officer has visited the fields and estimated the damage caused to your client.  The allegations made in the notice are only to have wrongful gain.”

From this it is beyond doubt that the complainant had sustained loss of sugarcane due to snap of electric wire belonging to the appellants Electricity Board. 

9.         The question is whether there was any deficiency in service that could be attributed to them?

10.       The Board having laid 11 K.V. electric line ought to have seen that same was not cut and thereby sustained the damage in case of heavy rain, winds and gales.  In case whether there was such an incident, undoubtedly it ought to have paid the compensation.  It cannot be said that it is an act of God.  The Board is duty bound to maintain these lines and in case of negligence on their part they are bound to compensate the party who had sustained loss in this regard.  In the light of the documentary evidence besides their own admission under Ex.A.9, we are of the opinion that the Board had to pay the damages for the loss occasioned in this regard.  As far as quantum of amount is concerned, the Agricultural Officer has certified that the complainant had sustained 30 tonnes per acre.  Since the complainant could not prove that he has raised sugarcane crop in an extent of Ac.1.75 cents, the District Forum opined that there was a loss of 50 tonnes of sugarcane.  Valuing at Rs.900/- per tone it has arrived at an amount of Rs.45,000/- which we do not feel high.  It was reasonable and modest.  We do not see any flaw either in appreciation of fact or law in this regard.  However, since compensation was already awarded, we do not think that interest also be awarded on the compensation.  Except awarding of interest rest of the order is confirmed.     

  11.     In the result, the appeal is dismissed.  However, in the circumstances, no costs.

PRESIDENT                               LADY MEMBER

                                         DT.20.01.2009.