BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.131/2008 Order dated this the 25th day of February 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.Puttegowda S/o Giddegowda, R/o Madihally Village, Kikkeri Hobli, K.R.Pete Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.K.M.Basavaraju., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. Assistant Executive Engineer, CESK, K.R.Pet Sub-Division, Mandya District. 2. Executive Engineer, CHESCOM Ltd., Pandavapura, Mandya District. 3. Branch Manager, CHESCOM Ltd., Kikkeri Branch, K.R.Pet Sub-Division, Mandya District. 4. Executive Engineer, CHESCOM Ltd., Mandya District, Mandya. (By Sri.A.Immanual., Advocate for O.Ps. 1 to 3 & Sri.G.S.Mahadevaswamy., Advocate for 4th O.P.) Date of complaint 08.12.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 21.12.2008 Date of order 25.02.2009 Total Period 2 Months 4 Days Result The complaint is partly allowed, directing the Opposite parties to pay Rs.29,830/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within 6 weeks, failing which they are liable to pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the Opposite parties for compensation of Rs.1,20,831/- with interest and costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that he had grown sugar can crop in 1 acre 18 guntas in Sy.No.58/2 at Madihally Village, K.R.Pete Taluk and it was ready for harvesting. The said crop was burnt on 30.01.2007 due to electrical fire mischief due to the negligence of the Opposite parties in not attending to the dropping of the oil from the transformer. On the same day, the complainant lodged a complaint before Kikkeri Police Station and case was registered in FIR.4/2007 and police drew mahazar and even Opposite party Officials also inspected and submitted the report. There is a transformer by the side of the sugar cane crop and in the middle of the land, the electric lines are drawn and due to improper maintenance of the transformer, electric spark had come from the transformer and fell on oil dropped from the transformer which was burning spread to the crop, the complainant had grown 140 tons. On account of burning, he supplied only 65 tons 300 Kg. to ICL Sugars Factory and paid only Rs.33,169/-, though the rate was Rs.1,100/- per ton. Therefore, the complainant sustained loss of Rs.1,20,831/- and in spite of so many requests Opposite parties have not paid the compensation and hence they have committed deficiency in service. 3. The 3rd Opposite party has filed version and it is adopted by 1st & 2nd Opposite parties. Admitting that the complainant is the owner of 1 acre 16 guntas in Sy.No.58/2 of Madihalli Village and he had grown sugar cane, but the cane was not in the stage of harvesting. It is denied that the complaint had been made about the leakage of transformer oil, but it is admitted that there was a fire accident set off by accidental spark from the transformer and the said spark came in contact with the spilled over oil of transformer. The accident would not have occurred, but for the negligence of the complainant for growing the sugar cane under the transformer and sufficient pre-cautionary measure should be taken by the farmers. The complainant is not a consumer. The complainant has not reported about the fire accident and loss to the property. The claim of the complainant that he had grown 140 tonns of sugar cane is a creation of the complainant. The complainant himself is responsible for the fire mischief due to his negligence and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 4. The 4th Opposite party has filed version stating that he is not a necessary party. The complainant is not a consumer. The complaint is not maintainable before the consumer Forum and it is in civil nature. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 5. During trial, the complainant is examined and he has produced Ex.C.1 to C.17. On behalf of the Opposite parties, 3rd Opposite party is examined. 6. We have heard the counsel for the complainant, but the Opposite parties and counsel remained absent at the time of arguments. 7. We have perused the records. 8. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer? 2. Whether electric fire mischief to sugar cane crop is due to the deficiency in service by 1st & 3rd Opposite parties? 3. Whether the complainant has sustained loss? 4. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation? 9. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 10. The 3rd & 4th Opposite parties have contended that the complainant is not a consumer and he has not stated whether he has paid electrical charges, but the complainant has produced Ex.C.5 to C.10 the receipts issued by the Opposite party Company for having paid the amount. It is admitted in the evidence of Opposite party witness that there is a transformer in the land of the complainant and electric line pass through. Therefore, it is proved that the complainant is a Consumer of the Opposite party. 11. The grievance of the complainant is that there was leakage of oil from the transformer installed in the land of the complainant and in spite of information, 3rd Opposite party did not taken any action to rectify and proper maintenance and on account of negligence due to spark from the transformer through the oil, the fire spread to the sugar cane crop grown in the land and it was burnt on 30.01.2007 at about 3.30 p.m. Admitting in the version though the sugar cane crop burnt on account of electric spark from the transformer and spreading through leaked oil, the fire mischief was caused to the sugar cane crop, but it is contended that it is the negligence of the complainant for this fire mischief, because under the transformer he had grown sugar cane crop. 12. The complainant has admittedly lodged a complaint to the police and endorsement Ex.C.1 was issued registering FIR 4/07 and police have drawn the mahazar Ex.C.11 and in fact, the 3rd Opposite party has given statement before the Electrical Inspector as per Ex.C.14 and has stated that due to the electric spark from the transformer through oil spread to the sugar cane crop and complainant has given statement Ex.C.15 before the Electrical Inspector Mandya and Ex.C.17 is the report by the 1st & 2nd Opposite parties about the electrical mischief. 13. Though the complainant sought for production of the documents, the Opposite party did not produce and the complainant has produced the Xerox copy of the letter from 2nd Opposite party to 4th Opposite party and also letter by Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector, Mangalore to the Principal Secretary, Energy Department, Government of Karnataka and in that letter, it is stated that the fire mischief was due to the electric spark from H.T.Bushings of transformer on 30.01.2007 at 3.30 p.m. which had fallen to the ground on the oil spread over under the transformer and if the permission had not been given to grow the crop near the transformer, the fire mischief would have been avoided. Therefore, the 3rd Opposite party has contravened Section 29 of the Indian Electricity Act 1956 and it is opined that when the electric spark fell to the ground from the transformer on the oil spread over from the transformer, the fire was caught and spread over to the sugar cane crop due to air. Under these circumstances, it is clearly established that due to the negligence and deficiency in service in not properly maintaining the transformer put up in the land of the complainant, the electrical mishap has taken place and hence, Opposite parties 1 to 3 have committed deficiency in service. 14. According to the complainant, if the sugar cane crop had not been burnt, the yield would have been 140 tonns in 1 acre 18 guntas of land and due to the fire mischief he supplied only 65 tonns 300 Kgs. and the rate was Rs.1,100/- per tonn, but the factory paid only Rs.33,169/- for the burnt sugar cane and therefore he sustained loss of Rs.1,20,831/-. 15. The Opposite party has contended that it was not in harvesting stage, but the police mahazar reveals that it was in harvesting stage as the crop was flowering. The complainant has produced the RTC to show that Sy.No.58 measures 1 acre 18 guntas and the Karabis 2 guntas and cultivable land is 1 acre 16 guntas. As per Ex.C.4, the ticket issued by the I.C.L. Sugar Limited Makavalli, the complainant has supplied 65.300 tonns. So, it shows that in 1 acre 16 guntas he has supplied 65.300 tonns. Naturally in case of burning of the crop, water content of the sugar cane to some extent will be decreased and the weight will be reduced. Considering the sugar cane supplied by the complainant, though the average yield is between 40 to 60 tonns per acre depending upon soil and the cultivation, in the circumstances of the case as the sugar cane supplied by the complainant from 1 acre 16 guntas, it can be assessed that due to burning of the crop, there is loss of weight atleast 5 tonns and the say of the complainant that the crop would have been 140 tonns is unimaginable from 1 acre 16 guntas, therefore, the complainant has sustained loss of 5 tonnes. 16. At the rate of Rs.1,100/- per tonn prevailing in the year 2007 for 70 tonns, the earning would have been Rs.77,000/-. But, the complainant has received Rs.33,169/-. For harvesting and transport of 70 tonns at the rate of Rs.200/- the factory will deduct Rs.14,000/-. So, the complainant has sustained loss of Rs.29,830/-. 17. Due to the deficiency in service by the Opposite parties, the Opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.29,830/-. 18. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is partly allowed, directing the Opposite parties to pay Rs.29,830/- with costs of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant within 6 weeks, failing which they are liable to pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 25th day of February 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER)
