::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.59/2017.
Date of filing: 05.09.2017.
Date of disposal: 19.03.2018.
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: 1. Bhimanna S/o Malshetty,
Age: 64 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Village Nittur (B),
Tq: Bhalki, Dist: Bidar.
(By Sri. Rajkumar.K. Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1) The Assistant Executive
Engineer GESCOM, Bhalki
Tq: Bhalki, Dist: Bidar.
(By Sri. Santosh.V.Bargale,Adv.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
This is a complaint filed u/s 12 of the C.P.Act,1986, claiming compensation from the opponent.
2. That, the complainant, an agriculturist possessing land bearing Sy.No.122 in village Nittur, Tq: Bhalki, Dist: Bidar and an I.P. Set is installed in his land.
3. The complainant was also owing a milching she buffalo, which was yielding 3 to 4 liters of milk twice a day and the complainant selling the milk was earning Rs.300 to 400/- per day. Said she-buffalo while grazing in the complainants’ land stated above about 3.30 p.m. on 03.07.2017, the electrical pole installed in the complainants’ land fell down, the transmission wires touched the grazing buffalo, as a consequence of which receiving massive electrical shock the animal died.
4. After the electrical accident, the complainant lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional Dhanura Police Station. As a follow up of the accident, the police visited the spot, prepared panchanama and the dead animal was subjected to postmortem, in which the concerned veterinarian has confirmed the cause of death was due to electrical shock.
5. The complainants’ claim for compensation date: 13.07.2017 lodged with the opponents (Ex.P.6), not been considered he is before us seeking a compensation ofRs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a.
6. The O.P. putting up appearance has claimed the complaint averment as false, baseless and not maintainable. The O.P. has also disputed the land holding of the complainant on Sy.No.122 of Village Nittur (B), That, the complainant has owned a milching she-buffalo. The O.P. has further denied the claimed buffalo dying due to electrical shock on account of the collapse of electrical pole and further that, the animal had died due to leg and mouth disease. The O.P. has further denied the status of the complainant as consumer, about the existence of any I.P. set installed and further that, the police investigation and Postmortem was conducted behind its’ back and not binding on the O.P. .
7. In Para 7 of the versions however, the O.P. adds a new theorum that, the electrical pole was bent towards the ground for which he removed the jump and due to heavy rain and wind the pole was not attended to. Some ill wishers had fixed the jump to the pole. In the later Paras the O.P. disputes the complainants’ income by selling the buffalos’ milk and states that, the complainant is duty band to take care of his animal. It is further claimed that, the buffalo was age old and there was no income from it to the complainant. Amazingly but, the O.P. is conspicuously silent about the falling of the installed electrical pole.
8. Both sides have filed evidence affidavits, written arguments, have submitted citations of higher foras trying to justify their respective contentions which would be discussed appropriately. The complainant had submitted documents as listed at the end of this order.
9. Considering the pros and cons of the claims and rival contentions, the following points arise for our considerations.
- Does the complainant prove that, he is entitled for compensation?
- Does the O.P. prove that, the complaint averments are false, concocted and further that, the O.P. is not liable to make good of the loss suffered by the complainant?
- What order?
10. Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-
Point No.1. In the affirmative.
Point No.2. In the negative.
Point No.2. As per final orders, owing to the following.
:: REASONS ::
11. The consideration of Points No.1 and 2 has to proceed simultaneously. Ab initio, the opponent had raised a hoopla about the land holding and consumer ship of the complainant. At a later stage, the complainant with an Interlocutory application filed the R.T.C. and sanction order of electricity connection of the year 2002 by the K.P.T.C.L. and also bill a and consumption receipts if the present opponent. The same was received in evidence imposing costs on the complainant and the documents now form part of the record. Hence the contention of the opponent that, the complainant is neither a hand holder or consumer under GESCOM is prima facie hollow.
12. The next contention of the opponent that, the dead animal was aged and had died due to foot and mouth diseases is belied by the Postmortem certificate issued by the Asst. Director, Veterinary, Nittur (B)- Ex.P.3 of the case record. This certificate amply goes to prove that, the animal had died due to respiratory failure, resultant cardiac arrest due to sever electric shock and the value of the animal has been assessed at Rs.60,000/-.
13. Contrary to the self serving assertions of the opponent trying to wriggle out of the case, the police complaint at Ex.P.1, Panchanama at Ex.P.2, witness statement at Ex.P.4 and P.5 and photo of the carcass at Ex.P.7, clearly shows that, the electrical pole had collapsed in the open field and the live wires mounted to it caused electrical shock to the dead animal. We also observe that, not only the pole causing the death but another pole is also lying in the field. This fact goes to show the negligent act of the opponent and the entire machinery. In Bidar district, storms, hurricanes, tornados, cyclones are unheard of. How could then, the poles collapsed due to wind?
14. The complainants’ side in furtherance of its justification has submitted citations as follows:-
IV (2008) CPJ 139 (NC)
C.G.M.P. and O, NPDCL and others v/s Koppu Duddarajam and another, in which it has been held as follows:-
Villagers pay taxes to Village Panchayats and power consumption charges to electricity company are consumers.
III (2010) CPJ 198 (NC)
DHBVNL v/s Vidhya Devi, where in the Hon’ble National has held as follows:-
Petitioner transmits energy, has duty to ensure safety and security of persons, animals and other objects.
Per centra the opponent has relied upon the citation.
11(1993) CPJ 1150 (Haryana State Commission)
H.S.B.E.B. v/s Chittar Singh and Anothr, where in the ratio held was follows:-
Complaint filed for compensation Not alleged that he was consumer of electricity Whether complainant is a consumer? (No).
15. The above said ratio is squarely not applicable to the case and further, the same has been eclipsed owing to the much later judgment of National commission reported in III (2010) CPJ-198 (NC).
16. Owing to the discussions Supra, we unhesitantly answer the point No.1 and 2 accordingly.
17. Arriving to assess the fair compensation to the complainant, we feel the claim is at a higher side and the complainant and witnesses have been inconsistent about the value of the dead animal. In two cases, reported in 2013 (1) CPR 510 (NC) and III (2013) CPJ 377(NC), the Hon’ble National Commission has mandated that, in the case of death of Cattle, the cost estimated by the veterinarian to be awarded. In the instant case, the Assistant Director, veterinary having assessed the cost at Rs.60,000/- we feel it proper that, the complainant is entitled for that much and resultantly, we proceed to pass the following:-
::ORDER::
- The complaint is allowed in part.
- The opponent is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/- (sixty thousand) together with 12% p.a. interest to the complainant calculated from the date of the electrical accident i.e. 03.07.2017 till the date of realisation;
- A further sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) would be payable by the opponent towards litigation expenses;
- 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 19th day of March 2018).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Ex.P.1- C.C. of Police complaint date: 03.07.2017.
- Ex.P.2– C.C. of spot Mahazar.
- Ex.P.3– C.C. of Post mortem report.
- Ex.P.4—C.C. of intimation to the Tahasildar cum Executive
Magistrate, Bhalki, date: 07.07.2017. - Ex.P.5- C.C. of witness statement.
- Ex.P.6 – Acknowledged copy of representation to the opponent.
- Ex.P.7- Color photo depicting the carcass and dislodged electric
pole. - Ex.P.8- Copy of Aadhar Card of complainant.
- Ex.P.9- Sanction of Service connection by KPTCL.
- Ex.P.10 to 12- receipts of KPTCL (original).
- Ex.P.13- Work order of KPTCL.
- Ex.P.14- R.T.C. of Sy.No.122 of village Nittur (B) original.
- Ex.P.15- Electricity Bill (original).
- Ex.P.16- Money receipt of GESCOM.
Document produced by the Opponents.
-Nil-
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Sri. Bhimanna s/o Malshetty (complainant).
Opponent.
- R.W.1- Anil Kumar Kulkarni S/o Digamber Rao, A.E.E. GESCOM, Bhalki (opponent).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
