Karnataka

Bidar

CC/18/2018

Syed Nayeemuddin - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant Executice Engineer, GESCOM, - Opp.Party(s)

K.Bhadrashetty

13 Jun 2019

ORDER

-::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

                                                               C.C. No.18/2018.

                                                            Date of filing: 25.05.2018.

                                                                   Date of disposal:   13.06.2019.

 

P R E S E N T:-    

                              (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,                                                                                                                                                                                                                       B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                President

 

                             (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

 

COMPLAINANT/S:           Syed Nayeemuddin, S/o Sardar Ali,

                                             Age: about 42 years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                                  R/o Mannaekhelli, Tq.Humnabad,

                                                  Dist. Bidar.                                                                                        

                                           ( By Sri. K.Bhadrashetty, Adv.)                                         

 

                                                                 VERSUS

OPPONENT/S:                    The Assistant Executive Engineer, 

                                              GESCOM Sub- Division,

                                              Kamthana, Tq & Dist. Bidar.                                

                             

                                             (By Sri. Mahesh S.Patil., Adv.)

::   J UD G M E N T  ::

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

The instant complaint alleging deficiency of service and resultant crop loss against the opponent U/s.12 of the C.P.Act, 1986 disclosing cause of action as obriged underneath.

2.        The complainant is an agriculturist owning and possessing land to the extent of Ac.5.20 guntas in Sy.no. 176/2, 176/1/5 in village Kodwad, Tq. & Dist. Bidar for the purpose of drip irrigation, he had dug a borewell in the land and had obtained an electrical power connection vide R.R.no. KDIP 29387 from the opponent.  The land concerned bears Khata No. 819, H.T. line of electricity runs over the complainant’s land drown by the opponent an official of GESCOM.  The said H.T. lines upkeep was negligent by the O.P. for which, the drawn transmission wires were slack in violation of the normal tension.  The complainant availing a loan from financial institution had planted 1400 mango tress in the said land and had provided irrigation facilities to the crop grown in the land.

2.         On 27.03.2017, there was a stormy weather and the loose drawn H.T. lines could not withstand the impact came into contact with each other resulting electrical sparks, which fell to the ground.  There were grasses grown in the ground, which caught fire due to the faking sparks and the inferno resulted in destroying the entire mango plantation and also the irrigation system implied.

3.         The matter was reported to the jurisdictional Badgal Police Station, which had registered the complainant in F.A. no. 6/2017 and had investigated the case and panchanama was drawn.  His claim for compensation with the O.P. turning into deaf ears, the complainant is before us claiming a compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- in toto.

4.         The O.P. upon notice has entered into defence and has filed elaborate written version.  In the versions the ownership land in                        Sy.no. 176/2 has been claimed to be not known, but the obtainment of electrical power connection has been admitted.  Any deficiency of service has been vehemently denied.  Loose running of the power connection, their intertouching emanating sparks and resultant fire accident is denied byu the O.P.  Interrogatories were later filed on 17.10.2018, which was adequately dealt by the complainant.  Thereafter, an I.A. under order XXVI Rule-9 of C.P.C. was moved by the O.P. to conduct a spot inspection on 05.02.2018, which was rejected by the Forum due to efflux of time, since the report of burnt mango trees could not have been ascertained by any conceivable inspection.

5.         As corollary evidence affidavits were filed, later coupled with written arguments and now the time has come to put a verdict.  Both sides were heard in length on their submission,  Documents claiming the entitlements of the parties are listed after the orders in this case.

6.         Considering the allegations and it’s counter in the right perspective, the following points arise for our considerations.                                             

1. Does the complainant prove that, there was a fire accident on the given date due to loose drawing of power transmission line over his land on the given date?
2.  Does the O.P. prove that, there was no such deficiency/negligency for the crop destruction of the complainant ?
3. What orders ?

7.         Our answers to the points raised are as follows:-

1. In the Affirmative.
2. In the Negative.
3. As per the final orders owing to the following:-

                                       :: REASONS ::

8.            Notwithstanding the object denial ofthe O.P. the complainant has submitted copies of G.S.C. no. P-00400170600017 in F.A. no. 6/17 of Bagdal P.S., Bidar District statements of witness, spot mahazar, complainant’s written complaint in F.A. no. 6/17 of Bagdal P.S.  He has also submitted report from the fire brigade in which it is reported that, Mango trees, agricultural equipments and drip irrigation pipes in Sy.no.176/2 of Kadwad village were fully burnt.  He has also submitted a report of the electrical Inspectorate submitted to Govt. of Karnataka (Annexure-W).  from this document it is seen that, the inspection was done on 31.03.2017 basing on a report from the section officer, GESCOM, Kamthana submitted on 30.03.2017.  Apart from police authorities the report at Annexure-W is the earliest and proximate to the fire accident day.  In this report, the Dy. Chief Electrical Inspector, Kalaburgi has opined that, factually, 11                    K.V. power transmission lines run over the complainant’s land bearing Sy.No.176/2 and the wires being loose came across each other due to the storm resulting sparks falling on the crops below.  It is further opined that, were the lines were properly drawn and maintained keeping sufficient gap from the trees and had the power supply dripped when wires touched each other the fire accident could have been avoided.  It is further opined Rules 45(2) and 64 (3) of the central Electricity Rules have been violated in the part of the opponent.  The documents submitted coupled with the evidence affidavit overwhelmingly prove that, in fact fire accident took place on 27.03.2017 at the lands of the complainant and the resultant destruction was of 1400 Mango trees, agricultural equipment and drip-irrigation pipes.  Hence we answer this point in the positive.

 

9.         Albeit the opponent has vehemently denied the complainant’s land holding, fire accident resulting crops and equipment loss and negligency ofthe opponent in maintaining the High Tension power lines the evidence (certificate) of the electoral inspectorate belies the contention of the O.P. in to to and we answer this point in the negative.

 

10.       Pondering over the point to consider the claims of the complainant, we observe in a case law reported in III (2010) CPJ 198 (NC) DHEV NL V/s Vidhya Devi, the Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to hold as hereunder.

“      Electricity companies transmitting energy are duty bound to  maintain and ensure safety and security of persons, animals and other objects and when exposed wires cause damages the service provider has to compensate losses”. 

 

This ratio of the National Commission clinches the issue and we proceeding to estimate the approximate loss of the complainant found that, excepting the complaint and a legal notice averment no where there is an illustration about the quantum of real loss.  Even though at a later stage on 06.04.2017, the complainant filing a to the Horticulture authorites (Annexure-G) has mentioned the loss as a Rs.10,00,000/- the same cannot be given much credence.  However, we observe at the earliest stage the complainant has assessed his loss at Rs. 2,90,000/- (Annexure-D) in a application to the police authorites and the same was reported to the Tahsildar bythe Police (Annexure-B)

 

            Hence we accent the earliest assessment as the net loss and  we proceed to pass the following:

 

 

::ORDER::

The complaint is allowed in part.

1. The opponent is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- towards crop loss of the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. calculated form the date of fire accident i.e. 27.03.2017 till realisation.
2. We observe that, no realistic assessment has been made by any person regarding the yields of fruits on the 1,400 four year old trees.  Hence conservatively we award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and direct the O.P. to pay to the complainant in addition to the above figure.

3. The opponent is hereby further directed to pay a compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agonies and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.
4. Four weeks time granted to comply this order.

 (Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 7^th day of June 2019).

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                 President.                                                                                        

                                                                         

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Annexure.A-  Police acknowledgement dt.28.03.2017
2. Annexure.B– Report of Bagdal P.S.to Tahsildar,Bidar dt.28.03.2017  
3. Annexure.C-  Witness statement dt.28.03.2017.
4. Annexure.D– Written complaint dt.28.03.2017.  
5. Annexure.E-   Spot Mahazar Dt.28.03.2017.
6. Annexure.F-   Report of Fire Brigade
7. Annexure.G-  Application of complainant dt.06.04.2017. to

                         Horticulture Officer,Bidar.

8. Annexure.H-  Representation of complainant dt.25.04.2018.
9. Annexure.J-     (I excluded)  Pass Book of complainant.
10. Annexure K- Open/Borewell ownership certificate.
11. Annexure L-  Certificate of Village Accountant Kadwad.
12. Anexure.M-   Rough Sketch.
13. Annexure N-  RTC extracts
14. Annexure.P-  (O excluded ) Patta Book.
15. Annexure Q-  Colour photo of scene of occurance.
16. Annexure .R- Document regarding electricity supply.
17. Annexure S-  Acnowledged copy of representation to Tahsildar,Bidar.
18. Annexure T- Office copy of legal notice dt.05.03.2018.
19. Annexure U- Post receipt.
20. Annexure U-1- Postal Acknowledgement form.
21. Annexure V- Voter I.D. Card of complainant.
22. Annexure W- Letter of Inspectorate of Electircals to Govt. of

                         Karnataka dt.20.02.2018.

 

 Document produced by the Opponent.

•  Nil    -

Witness examined.

Complainant.

1. P.W.1- Syed Nayeemuddin, S/o Sardar Ali  (Complainant).

Opponent.

1. R.W.1- Sri. Ravikumar S/o Siddaramappa,A.E.E. (O&M Sub-

                   Division, Kamthana,Bidar.

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

       Member.                                                                   President.