Date :12.04.2013.
Per Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
1. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. through its Executive Engineer and Dy.Engineer challenges in this appeal order passed by District Forum, Osmanabad on 21.5.2008, while deciding complaint case No.50/2008.
2. The facts giving rise to the complaint are as under.
Ramesh Manraj Deshmukh resident of Peth Sangwi, Tq.Umerga, Dist.Osmanabad is an agriculturist and consumer of opponent MSEDCL. It is stated in the complaint that complainant is owner of land Gut No.3/1 admeasuring 0 Hector 76R, Gut No.82/2 admeasuring 4 hector 72 R and Gut No.6/08 25R. For irrigating said lands complainant obtained electricity supply for electric motor from MSEDCL. In January 2006 complainant cultivated sugarcane in land Gut NO.82/2 admeasuring 1 Hector 20R. On fateful day i.e. on 7.4.2007 at 12.00 p.m., there was sparking in the overhead lines of the electricity and due to said sparking, sugarcane crop standing in the field was totally burnt. Due to said fire, including crop of sugarcane one tin shed, cattle shed, farming equipment were also burnt. Therefore complainant suffered loss of Rs.25,000/- for the same and Rs.6 lakhs for the sugarcane and 16 mango trees. Therefore complainant issued legal notice dated 21.1.2008 through Adv.G.K.Gaikwad. But said notice was not replied by the opponent therefore complainant approached to District Forum and demanded Rs.7,70,000/- , Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards cost.
3. Opponents appeared before the Forum and submitted their written version. It is submitted that incident of fire was not informed to the opponents. It is submitted that at the time of panchanama by Tahasil office, Police authority, appellants were not served with the notice. Therefore these panchanamas are not binding on them. It is also submitted that for assessing loss due to fire, report of Electrical Inspector is necessary which is not produced in the present case. Hence complaint be dismissed.
4. After hearing both the parties District Forum directed the appellant to pay Rs.2,49,622/- as compensation within 30 days and Rs.500/- for costs.
5. Dissatisfied with the said judgment and order, MSEDCL came in appeal.
6. Adv.Shri.S.N.Tandale appeared for the appellant. Though notice was duly served to respondent, none appeared for respondent at the time of final hearing. It is submitted by Adv.Tandale that first of all complainant is not consumer of the appellant as alleged fire occurred on the electricity line through which supply was not given to the respondent/org.complainant. Supply was in the name of joint family, therefore complaint is not consumer of the appellant in respect of said loss. It is further submitted by Adv.Tandale that incident of fire was not informed to the MSEDCL and appellant MSEDCL was not served with the notice while panchanama conducted by Tahasil and Police authority. Therefore recording of said authority is not binding on them. Adv.Tandale forcefully submitted that immediately after fire it is obligatory on the part of complainant to inform the said fact to Electrical Inspector who can assess the loss. There is no report of Electrical Inspector on the record. Therefore exact loss of the appellant cannot be assessed. There is no proof about the loss occurred to the complainant on the record. It is further submitted by Adv.Tandale that as per Section 52(1)(3) of Indian Electricity Act farmers are under obligation to maintain stipulated distance from the electricity line and plant or trees. In the present case it seems that complainant did not follow the guidelines issued by MSEDCL.
7. In support of his contention he relied on appeal No.279/2005 in case of "Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. -Vs- Ramrao Sakharam Dhas" , in which it is held that electric line on which sparking occurred is not the line through which supply was given to the complainant. Therefore he is not consumer of MSEDCL in that respect. Adv.Tandale also relied on judgment in appeal No.227/2007. It is held by State Commission, Mumbai that electric line passing through the land of complainant cannot fall part of transmission of electric supply given to the complainant. There is only because the lines are passing through the land of complainant there cannot be relationship of consumer and service provider. He also produced judgment of National Commission in "Haryana State Electricity Board -Vs- Mohanlal" reported in 1986-99 Consumer 3695(NC) wherein Hon`ble National Commission held that "the lines which produced the spark have nothing to do with the arrangement for supply of electrical energy to the tubewell of the complainant. it was a supply line providing electrical energy to some other consumer and if that line was defective it cannot be said that there was deficiency in service to the complainant in this capacity as consumer of electricity from the Electricity Board".
8. We have thus considered the contention of Adv.Tandale and perused the record. It is seen that after incident of fire information was not given to the MSEDCL. No evidence was produced on record to show that information regarding accident of fire was given to MSEDCL. It is also seen that Electrical Inspector was also not informed about the incident. Therefore there was no report of Electrical Inspector on record to assess the loss. The panchanamas by police and Tahasil are not to be relied as they are not proper authorities to assess the loss. In our view the sparking occurred on the line which was passing through the field of complainant. From that line no electric connection has been taken to the field of the complainant. Hence he is not consumer of MSEDCL in respect of that line under Consumer Protection Act. For this purpose we are relying on judgment of National Commission in Harayana State Electricity Board`s case(cited Supra). In our view it is also not proved by the complainant that sparking occurred due to negligence of MSEDCL or deficiency in service on the part of MSEDCL. There is no evidence to show that due to negligence of MSEDCL fire was occurred. District Forum committed error while appreciating evidence brought before it and allowed the complaint. We are of the view that alleged loss suffered by complainant was not proved by any cogent evidence or authentic piece of evidence by the complainant. Therefore we are of view that appeal is to be allowed by dismissing the complaint. Hence,
O R D E R
1. Appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by District Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Complaint stands dismissed.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
Pronounced on dt. 12.04.2013.
