Date of Filing :13.12.2022
Date of Disposal :25.07.2024
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED:25.07.2024
PRESENT
Mr K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER
(DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE (R)
Mrs DIVYASHREE M: LADY MEMBER
APPEAL No.2433/2022
1. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele.)
Hubli Electricity Supply Company Ltd.,
O & M Sub-Division
Guledgudd
Badami Taluk-587 203
Bagalkot District
2. The Executive Engineer (Ele.)
Hubli Electricity Supply Company Ltd.,
O & M Division
Navanagar
Bagalkote-585 101
3. The Section Officer
Hubli Electricity Supply Company Ltd.,
Badami
Badami Taluk-587 203
Bagalkot District
(By Mr H V Devaraju, Advocate) Appellants
-Versus-
Sri Panpanna
S/o Sri Basappa Kachatti
@ Chiniwalar
Aged about 72 years
Occ: Agriculture
R/o Ward No.5
Banashankari Colony
Badami, Badami Taluk - 587 203
Bagalkot District
(By Mr Ashok R Kalyana Shetty, Advocate) Respondent
-:ORDER:-
Mr. K B. SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICAL MEMBER:
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by OPs aggrieved by the Order dated 01.09.2022 passed in Consumer Complaint No.92/2021 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bagalkot (for short, the District Commission).
2. The Parties to this Appeal will be referred to as the rank assigned to them by the District Commission
3. The Commission examined the impugned order, grounds of Appeal, Appeal papers and heard learned counsels. Now the point that arises for consideration of this Commission would be:
Whether impugned order dated 01.09.2022 passed in CC No.92/2021 does call any interference for the grounds set out in the Appeal Memorandum?
4. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant before the DCDRC would be stated as follows:
The complainant is the owner of the land bearing Re-survey No.280/4B(now-R.S No.280/5) to an extent of 3 Acre 19 guntas and this land is irrigated through bore-well with submersible pump set having drip pipelines and in the said land, he had availed electric service from OP to generate his submersible pump set with mono block pump set to the bore-well. He had grown pomegranate trees in his land investing huge amount. The trees are of 7 years age started yielding fruits from the age of 3 years, he had grown 15 tons of Pomegranate getting earnings of Rs.11 to 12 lakhs. On 23.02.2020 at about 1 pm due to short circuit in the over head electric line, spark fell on the land, where pomegranate trees were grown and as a result, all trees came under fire within few minutes burnt causing huge loss. He was unable to extinguish the fire due to electric short circuit. In the said incident, he has lost his 3 acres, 19 guntas of live pomegranate tree, drip pipeline, starter box and wiring were also burnt and he sustained loss of 15 tons pomegranate fruits and 1,320 trees aged about 7 years worth of Rs.14,60,700/-. HOPCOMS, Lalbag, Bangalore, Department of Horticulture certified under a letter dated 23.07.2020 per kg rate of Pomegranate in the month of February, 2020 was Rs.97.38 which comes to Rs.14,60,700/-. Besides had sustained loss of Rs.5,00,000/- for burning of drip pipeline, starter box, wiring and also sustained future loss of income for 4 years due to negligence on the part of OP.
5. OP had contested the complaint case, contending complaint is not maintainable. However, admits electric connection under RR No.49783 to the complainant is nothing to do with the alleged incident. OP denied growing of pomegranate trees 7 years ago and had denied loss to the tune of Rs.14,60,700/- and Rs.5 lakhs as stated. Further contending as per section 161 of Electricity Act 2003, the Electrical Inspector is the competent Authority to inspect and accordingly, Deputy Electrical Inspector who is the officer of State had visited the spot and submitted a report which discloses no negligence on the part of OP and therefore, no deficiency in service could be attributable on the part of OP. The Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.
In view of rival contentions of the parties to the complaint, DCDRC held an enquiry and on appreciation of all the materials on record held complaint is maintainable and he is entitled for compensation of Rs.6,06,250/- for loss of pomegranate tree and Rs.1 lakh towards loss of drip pipeline, starter box, live wiring and further held complainant is entitled for Rs.18,25,000/- towards future loss of income and Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings, which shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a on Rs.6,06,250/- and Rs.1 lakh and for non-compliance, OP to pay interest on such amount at the rate of 12% p.a till realisation. It is this order assailed in this Appeal, contending DCDRC has failed to notice section 161 and 162 of the Electricity Act, 2003. Further contending DCDRC without considering report of the Deputy Electrical Inspector committed grave error in holding OP liable to pay compensation.
Let us extract Section 161 of the Electricity Act which provides – Notice of accidents and inquiries –
- If any accident occurs in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in connection with, any of the electric lines or electrical plant of any person and the accident results or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss or injury actually caused by the accident, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed, to the Electrical Inspector or such other person as aforesaid and to such other authorities as the appropriate Government may by general or special order direct.
And
Section 162 provides for appointment of Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspector.
Thus by conjoint reading of Section 161 and 162 of the Act, competent person to inspect is the Electrical Inspector and herein the case such competent person has already inspected and submitted a report which would play a vital importance to decide the case of the complainant.
6. The learned counsel for Appellant/OP submits that the District Commission failed to consider these two provisions of law and failed to consider the materials placed on record by OP which discloses, the incident was not an electrical incident and therefore, question of deficiency in service on the part of OP do not arise at all. However, facts remain found from enquiry held by the District Commission,
the fire mishap incident in question has been occurred due to the intervention of squirrel on 10 KV live line pin insulator burst, as a result, over head electric wire sparkles fell on the dried grass was spread to the entire pomegranate crop grown in land bearing Sy.No.280/4B(changed as R.S No.280/5) measuring 3 Acres 19 guntas and to substantiate such fire sparks, complainant has placed fire fighter certificate dated 24.06.2020 and photos showing land after occurrence of fire incident, letter written by Sr. Assistant Director of Horticulture Department, Badami, letter written by Thasildar Jamakandhi to the Assistant Executive Engineer, O&M sub-division, Badami, in respect of fire mishap occurred in the land of the complainant. Copy of the investigation report dated 24.02.2020 submitted by SHO, Badami Police Station in respect of case AF/2/2020 to Taluka Executive Magistrate and Tahashildar.
Thus from the above such documents coupled with letter dated 11.05.2020 written by the Complainant to the Tahasildar, Badami claiming compensation in respect of loss caused to him due to fire mishap occurred in his land together with the report of the Electrical Inspector coupled with the letter of Section Officer of Badami, who has asked the complainant to furnish certain documents in respect of yield getting in the land along with price list obtained from APMC, report of Tahasildar and report of fire Extinguishing Officer DCDRC has to be held right in holding that the incident was occurred with the intervention of the squirrel as found in the report of the Inspector of Electrical. It is also to be taken notice of the fact found from the enquiry AEE of OP had also asked the complainant to furnish such documents to consider the case.
Thus from the above such documents coupled with report of Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector, Belagavi Circle, Belagavi, which was submitted to ACS Energy Department, Government of Karnataka, we could see mentioning the name of the complainant and his survey numbers of his land and his growing of pomegranate tree with the help of drip pipe lines, starter box and wirings which were burnt due to fire mishap occurred on 23.02.2020. It is not that competent authority had reported such mishap was the mischief of complainant.
7. Learned counsel for Complainant/Respondent herein would submit even report of Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector also substantiated the case of the Complainant that the fire incident occurred on 23.03.2020 in his land was due to fall of electric sparkling from over head line, when squirrel was moving on live 10 KV line pin insulated which was burnt, suffice to hold the competent authority under the Electricity Act 2003 has made a report as he had found at the spot and it was rightly appreciated by the District Commission has some considerable force. It is therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for Appellant/OP that the report of Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector was not considered is unacceptable. The Competent authority in his report has also stated during his visit of the said live found short circuit was passed, as a result of intervention of squirrel moving on the overhead 10 KV line and in fact during his inspection, he had also found dead squirrel lying on the land just below the said line. He had also reported mentioning of date 01.12.2002 on electrical pole and found broken pin insulator below the said pole, G.I.rod, nut bolt and dead squirrel. Thus, such materials on record, suffice to hold that fire incident alleged by the complainant was occurred due to improper maintenance of 11 KV line and it goes without saying it amounts to rendering deficiency of services on the part of OPs. Learned counsel for complainant would submit the competent person during his visit found, broken wire face pin insulator was replaced, also found complete burning of Pomegranate crop grown in Sy.No.280/4B measuring 3 acres 19 guntas and found burning of plastic pipe, pump set panel board and its periphery along with 3 core cable. He has reported that on 23.03.2020 F-8 yaragoppa 11 KV IP Feeder was not dripped and it was dripped only after receipt of information given to camp lineman Mr.Siddappa N.Shellikeri. Thus, from this report, coupled with his final opinion , fire mishap could be said occurred was only due to intervention of squirrel moving on overhead11 KV line pin insulator burst and as a result, electric sparks from over head line fell on the dried gross were spread all over the land which could be held occurred not only due the negligence of the complainant but also for improper maintenance of the electric over head lines, since report itself speaks of the fire incident, as opined by District Commission followed by the decision reported in 2013 (1) CPR 510 (NC) in the case between Divisional Engineer (Operations) APSPDCL and another Vs Smt. Bujamma and others wherein held ‘It is the duty of Electricity provider to ensure proper upkeep of transmission line’. Further DCDRC rightly referred the decision II 2009 CPJ 391 in the case between Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd., and others Vs Subbarama Naidu) wherein it is held ‘Electricity live wire snapped fallen sugar cane crop of complainant – entire crop burnt-deficiency in service on part of electricity. In case of negligence they are bound to compensate the parts who sustained losses. It is therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for Appellant/OP that decision cited by DCDRC is not applicable is held unacceptable. Learned counsel for Complainant rightly submitted had Power Company being vigilant in proper maintenance of 11 KV line, this incident would not have occurred.
In such view of the matter, for the above discussions, since Deputy Chief Electrical Inspector in his report had agreed that electric sparks was from old over head wires with an intervention of squirrel moving on it, suffice to hold complainant has proved rendering of deficiency in service on the part of OP and by the same time, as DCDRC has rightly held complainant has grown the pomegranate trees without maintaining the safe distance of 2.5 meters horizontally from the overhead live wires had also contributed his negligence.
8. Let us come to the compensation part awarded by the DCDRC, considering the letter dated 23.02.2021 of Senior Assistant Director of Horticulture Department, Badami and letter dated 23.07.2020 written by Chief Manager (Administration), HOPCOMS, Lalbag, Bengaluru to the President, HOPCOMS, Bagalkot District, Bagalkot intimating about purchasing rate of pomegranate fruits per Kg from 01.02.2020 to 30.04.2020. Though complainant had placed documents obtained from Chief Manager, HOPCOMS Lalbag, Bengaluru as to the rate of pomegranate fruits per kg in the month of February, 2020 at Rs.97.38, in the month of 2020 at Rs.141.04 and in the month of April 2020 at Rs.112.38 and had shown that the entire pomegranate trees grown in his land measuring 3.99 acres and has failed to place documents as to the yield in the previous years from the 4th years of age to 7th year, since he has stated that about 7 years ago, he started to grow pomegranate trees as on the date of fire incident, all trees were aged about 7 years. In our view DCDRC has failed to appreciate such vital aspects of the matter and proceed to award compensation for the loss sustained considering the trees grown in 3 acres and taking into consideration of the price of the pomegranate price per kg at Rs.97/- per year had assessed at Rs.12,12,500/- and reduced 50% towards his negligence awarded Rs.6,06,250/- and further awarded Rs.24,25,000/- towards future loss of income for 4 years as his pomegranate trees on the date of incident was 7 years of old. In this regard, we have to take into consideration of the economic life span of the trees. No doubt the trees normally yielding between 10 to 15 years and also to be considered pomegranate trees are susceptible to fungal disease like powdery mildew, fruit rot and leaf blight as well as bacterial infection like bacterial blight and bacterial canker. We have also to consider the trees usually take between three to five years to mature enough to bear their signature red, leathery fruit filled with sweet, edible seeds. Sometimes they are flowering with no fruits and the mild disease is one of the major bottle necks in this field which can cause major economic loss. The Complainant submits he had grown 15 ton of fruits and was selling the fruits, but placed nothing on record. Further we have also to consider the fact normally 200 trees per acre could be maintained and they yield up to 4 to 7 tons per acre in the 8th year onwards. Thus, considering all these pros and cons in growing pomegranate trees, although, DCDRC has rightly reduced 50% towards complainant’s negligence, but consideration for the loss of future earnings of 4 years, in our has to be restrict to 3 years which would meet ends of justice. We have also to consider cost of maintenance per plant per year at Rs.200/- and also to consider Rs.97 per Kg as reported by Chief Manager, HOPCOMS, Lalbag, Bengaluru. The DCDRC has considered to award compensation for the loss of trees burnt in 3 acres of land as against 3.19 acres and if accepted, we have to conclude that he had loss of 1320 trees and each tree yield 10 Kg which would comes to loss of 13,200 kgs per year, which would works out at Rs.12,80,400/- out of which we have to reduce Rs.2,64,000/- towards maintenance and it comes to Rs.10,16,400/- had complainant not contributed his negligence in growing the crop in maintaining said distance of 2.5 km horizontal from overhead live wire. Hence, we held he is entitled for Rs.5,08,200/- and in such conclusion towards future loss of crops considering such loss for 3 years for the reasons stated supra, complainant has to be held entitled for loss at Rs.15,24,600/- and he is also to be held entitled for loss of drip pipe line, starter box and wiring at Rs.75,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony as well physical convenience and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs.
9. In the above such conclusion, the Commission did not find any good grounds to set aside the impugned order as sought in the Appeal Memo, but are of the view order needs modification in the following terms.
Appeal is allowed in part and directed OP to pay Rs.5,08,200/- plus Rs.75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of complaint till realisation and do pay Rs.15,24,600/- towards future loss of crops. And directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards mental and physical inconvenience and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation within 60 days failing which, the amount so awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of such default till payment/realisation.
Amount in deposit is directed to be transfer to the District Commission for the needful.
Send copy of this Order to the District Commission and the parties concerned.
Lady Member Judicial Member
*s
