2. The Superintending Engineer,

    A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,

    4/7 Brodipet,

    Guntur.                                                          …opposite parties

        This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 03-05-11 in the presence of Sri B. Ramakoti Reddy , advocate for complainant and of Sri N. Kiran Bhanu, advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2, upon perusing the material on record and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming Rs.40,000/- towards loss of two              she-buffalos and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of one male-buffalo on account of electric shock,  Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income on account of death of buffalos, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.5,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,000/- towards expenses.

2.  In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

        The complainant is a small marginal farmer and is doing milk business by maintaining she-buffaloes.   Primary source of income for the complainant is due to sale of milk as the agricultural work being a seasonal one. The complainant purchased two she-buffalos and one male-buffalo on 14-09-09 for Rs.50,000/-.  On the date of purchase the she-buffalos were aged 7 years and 5 years respectively and male-buffalo aged about 4 years.  By the date of purchase, the two she-buffalos were carrying 8^th and 6^th month respectively.   The said                    she-buffaloes used to give 4 liters and 3 liters of milk in the morning and evening.   The complainant used to take the cattle for grazing into the fields everyday.  On 22-05-10 “Laila cyclone” occurred in Guntur district.  Due to the said cyclone the live electrical wires got disconnected from the poles and fell on the ground.  While grazing live electrical wires came into contact with the buffalos of the complainant, got electrocuted and died on the spot.   Due to the death of said buffalos the complainant lost income of Rs.10,000/- per month.   The opposite party failed to disconnect the supply during the cyclone period and failed to observe the disconnection of live wires.   The complainant informed the death of buffaloes to the opposite party.  The opposite party thus committed deficiency of service.

3.   The 1^st opposite party filed memo adopting the version of the                   2^nd opposite party and their contention in brief is hereunder:

        The Forum is not competent to grant compensation since the complainant is not a consumer under Consumer Protection Act.   The complainant is not seeking compensation on the basis of any imperfection and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.   The opposite parties did not receive any report about the alleged accident said to have been occurred on 22-05-10 either from the complainant or from the police.   This type of natural calamity was very rare and cannot be anticipated by anybody and it can be attended as and when a specific complaint is received.   The opposite party is not liable to pay compensation to the complainant and the complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.     Exs.A-1 to A-3 on behalf of the complainant were marked.  No documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

5.     Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?

3.  To what relief?

6. Point No.1:-   The complaint as well as the affidavit of the complainant was silent in whose fields buffaloes of the complainant were found dead.  Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the complainant is a consumer in the absence of particulars of land and service connection number.  In view of afore mentioned discussions, we opine that the complainant is not a consumer.  Hence, this point is answered in favour of opposite party.  

7.  POINTS 2 & 3:-  Ex.A-1 copy of paper publication revealed that nine buffaloes were found dead due to electric shock.   Ex.A-2 photo depicted died buffaloes. 

The complainant has to prove that his buffaloes died due to electric shock.  The complainant did not file certificate from the concerned veterinary doctor to show that his buffaloes died due to electric shock.   It can therefore be said that the complainant miserably failed in proving that his buffaloes died due to electric shock. 

8.     In Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Smt Ganga Devi 1996 (3) CPJ 182 (NC) it was held,

“The grievance of the complainant was that a cow belonging to her had been electrocuted on account of its coming into contact with an electric post and hence the loss caused to her by reason of death of the cow should be made good by the Haryana State Electricity Board which was responsible for the supply of electricity in the area.  In exactly similar circumstances, in the case Haryana State electricity Board vs. Sher Singh (RP.No.672/93 decided on 17-08-94) where a cow belonging to the complainant was killed as a result of electrocution by coming into contact with an electric wire, this commission had considered the question as to whether the electricity board which was supplying electricity and had been maintaining the electric supply lines could be held responsible under the Consumer Protection Act for making the good loss caused to the complainant.  The said question was answered in the negative holding that the grievance put forward by the complainant did not constitute a consumer dispute as defined in the Act because it was not a case of deficiency on the part of the Board in relation to the performance of any service pay consumer of electricity.  The said dictum governs this case also and applying it to the present case we hold that the District Forum was clearly in error in allowing the complaint and awarding compensation to the complainant”.      

        Taking a clue from the above decision it can be held that the opposite parties did not commit any deficiency of service and therefore the complainant is not entitled to any amount of compensation under any head.   Hence, these issues are answered in favour of the opposite party.

9.   POINT No. 4:-   In view of the above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to dictation by junior stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, dated this the 12th day of May, 2011.         

            MEMBER                                                                                        PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

    DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties:       NIL 

                                                                                           PRESIDENT