BEFORE THE DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM; DHARWAD.

DATE: 11/8/2016         

Complaint No.: 122/2016

Complaint No.: 123/2016  

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member

Complaint No.: 122/2016  

Complainant:       Amaresh Hazare S/o Ramanna Hazare,

                         Age-65, R/o: Ekthanagar (Taznagar),

                         Shivamogga Colony, Unakal, Hubli,

    (Rep.By G.S.Shivakumar,Adv.)

V/s

Respondent/s:   HESCOM Represented by its,

                        1)The Assistant Executive Engineer, 

                           ELE, o&m,C.S.D Sub division-3,             

   HESCOM, Hubli.

                        2)The Executive Engineer,

   O&M Division,HESCOM,Hubli,

                        3)The Chief Executive Officer,

   Corporate Office, Navanagar, P.B.Road,

   Hubli-25,

                     (Rep.By T.Subhas,Adv.)

Complaint No.: 123/2016

Complainant:  Thammanna Ningappa Arera,

                       Age -42 years,

                       R/o: Gokul Village, Hubli,

(Rep.By G.S.Shivakumar,Adv.)

V/s

Respondent/s:      HESCOM Represented by its

1. The Section Officer, HESCOM,

     R/o: O & M Section, City Sub

     Division-1,Uddyam Nagar,

     HESCOM, Hubli,

2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Electrical HESCOM,O & M CSD-3Sub division, Gokul Road, Hubli.
3. The chief Executive officer( Technical)

Corporate Office, Navanagar,

P.B Road, HESCOM, Hubli.

(Rep.By T.Subhas,Adv.)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

        Since the claim in CC/122 & 123/2016 are similar     and filed against the same respondent both the cases have been clubbed together for the purpose of passing common order and disposed of together in a common order.      

        The complainants have filed this complaints claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay the compensation for death of their live animals due to electrocution and order for compensation for mental agony and cost & such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

The case of the complainants in brief is that, while their live animals grazing, the animals come in contact with live electrical pole and died as the respondents have not properly taken precautionary care in safeguarding the contact of electric live poles and have not fenced.  Hence the grazing animals came in contact and died due to electrocution. The details of animals, value of the animals claim amount are detailed as per below table; 

The complainant and their family were depending on the income derived from the said animals out of milching. Due to untimely death of milching animals the complainant and their families put to hardship due to loss of future earnings by the death of milching animals.  The said incident occurred due to dare negligence of the respondent.  If the respondent have installed fence around the pole the said incident would have not occurred.  Subsequent to the death the complainant submits claim to the respondent with all documents but the respondent did not settle the claim as claimed instead they assured to settle megre amount irrespective of genuine claim made by the complainant. Non settlement of the claim made amounts to deficiency of service. Hence the complainant filed the instant complaint claiming the relief as sought. 

        In response to the notice issued by this Forum, the Respondent appeared. Despite given sufficient opportunities none of the respondents have filed written version and contest the matter. 

                On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

The complainant admits sworn to evidence affidavit and relied on documents while respondent neither filed written version or sworn to evidence affidavit.  Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. In affirmative 
2. In affirmative  
3.  As per order

Complainant relied on following citations;

1.2015 SAR (Civil) 232 Supreme court – Raman V/s  

   Uttara Haryana Bijali Vitran Nigam Ltd.,& Others.

2.2013 CJ 545 NC Ganga Patil, Prabhakar Patil V/S  

   Executive Engineer (Electrical) O & M Divn.II     

   GESCOM & Another

3. Judgment in CC 179/2014 DCF Davanagere

4. Judgment in CC 735/2014 DCF Shivamoga

Reasons

Points 1 and 2

        On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of complainants it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact, that the complainants live animals were died due to electrocution.

        Now the question to be determined is non settlement of the claim by the respondent amounts to deficiency of service. If so for what relief the complainants are entitle. 

        Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetition.

        As discussed supra it is the case of the complainant that the complainants are agricultural laborers and they were depending upon the income derived out of the deceased animals which died in electrocution due to negligence of the respondent.  Further it is also the case of the complainant that due to the death of their animals their future income have been stopped. As such the complainants and their family put to financial hardship.  Further it is also the case of the complainant if the respondent would have taken precautionary measures and have fenced the poles there would not have occurred the incident, which have taken place.  Hence the complainants have committed deficiency of service. 

        In CC 122/2016 as per the police records and P.M Report, the animal died in the incident is female buffalo aged 12 years and it was carrying 9 & ½ months foetus.  This fact has been further rectified by perusal of Ex.C-5, C-6(a) & C-6(b).  Ex.C-6(a) 6(b) are the photo of the P.M. Report.  Further perusal of the photo it is observed their lie carcass of calf beneath carcass of buffalo. Ex.C-5 P.M Report further rectifies the buffalo dies due to electrocution. Whereas in this complaint the complainant claims Rs;90,000/- towards the value of the buffalo but complainant not produced any documents in support of proof for the value of the buffalo.  On looking into the photo the carcass of the buffalo it do not seems the  buffalo of murra breed as claimed by the complainant instead it seems like local breed cow.  The Doctor who conducted PM except mentioning the age of the buffalo did not said anything about the value of the animal nor did the complainant did not attempted to produce any documents with regard to the proof for  value of the animal. But complainant subsequent to posted this complaint for orders with memo on 05/08/2016 at office of this forum produced on bare valuation certificate issued by veterinary doctor Unkal dtd 02.08.2016 without producing the challen for having paid to the Government towards the issue of certificate .Hence that certificate cannot be considered issued through proper channel & acceptable as an evidence. Under such circumstances it could be assess and estimate value of the buffalo will be at about Rs:30,000/-. The Ex.C-3 also reveals the buffalo was carrying 9 & ½ months foetus and at the postmortem spot carcass of calf was also seen.  Due to untimely death of calf it could be assess loss at Rs.5000/- .  In all we assess Rs;35,000/- towards the cost of buffalo.

        In CC 123/2016 the animal in question is cow.  The complainant claims Rs;40,000/- towards cost of the cow.  Whereas the P.M Report Ex.C-4 reveals cow is aged 4 & ½ months old it bears 6 & ½ months foetus.  As per C-4 Doctor has certified the animal is of value Rs;35,000/-  Under those circumstance if it is consider the value of deceased cow is acceptable as per EX.C—4. Even as per the judgments relied upon by the complainant the said value is considerable one. 

        Since the respondents have not admits written version and also has not adduced evidence the contention of the complainant remained unimpeached.  However in both the cases the complainants sought for compensation for future loss and mental agony.  Hence taking into consideration of the amount awarded on these facts as per relied judgments if it is ordered Rs;5,000/- as compensation for loss and mental Agony and Rs;1,000/- towards the cost of the prosecution will not cause injustice or loss to the either parties.

        In view of the discussions and conclusion arrived we inclined to held Issue No.1 & 2 affirmatively and accordingly.

Point No:3 : In view of the finding on points 1, and 2 proceeded to pass the following

ORDER

    The complaints are allowed in part against the Respondents.  The respondents 1, 2 & 3 jointly and severally directed to pay Rs; 35,000/- towards the cost of the animal and Rs; 5,000/- towards compensation for loss and mental agony along with Rs;1000/- towards the cost of the proceedings in each cases within 30 days from the date of service of certified copy the of order.  Failing to comply the same the award amount shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing complaint till realization of the amount. 

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by her and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 11^thday of August 2016)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                      (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                           President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                    Dist.Consumer Forum

GDB