This C.D coming on before us for final hearing, on 10-08-2007 in the presence of the Sri. B. Narasimha Reddy, Advocate for Complainant, and Sri. G. Harinder Reddy, Advocate for Opposite Parties No.1 to 3; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing, and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-
contd…2..
::2::
ORDER
(Per Sri. P.V Subrahmanyam, President )
1 This complaint is filed under section 12 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant alleging that on 01-07-2005 his two cows while grazing in his filed came into contact with electric live wire which fell down in his field from the over head lines and died on the spot due to electric shock. The death of the two cow is purely due to the negligence of the opposite parties, as they have not removed the electric live wires from his field. In fact the said wires were hanging to the poles at a height of about 5 or 6 feet from the ground level since long time, in a dangerous position. The villagers informed the same to the subordinates of the opposite parties. Inspite of it, due to lack of proper supervision and regular checkup of the lines by the opposite parties, one electric live wire cut off from the pole and fell on the ground. None of the personnel of the opposite parties attended to the same. It was negligently left on the ground with which the cows of the complainant came into contact and died, therefore the opposite parties are directely and vicariously liable for the death of the two cows.
2. The value of each cow was Rs.15,000/-. The complainant spent about Rs.5,000/- for completing all the formalities after the death of the cows. The complainant demanded the opposite parties several times to pay compensation to him. The opposite parties paid a deaf ear. Then the complainant got issued a legal notice dt. 15-06-2006. Having acknowledged the same, the opposite parties failed to pay compensation. Hence the complaint.
3. The complaint is resisted by filing a counter on behalf of the opposite parties, with the following allegations:-
Contd…3..
::3::
4. Due to heavy gale and wind electric wire fell down from the poles in the field of Ch. Venkateswar Rao and the two cows came into contact with the live wire which was fallen in the field and died on the spot. There is no negligence on the part of the subordinates of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. The falling of the wire was due to heavy rains and wind blow. There is no complaint either from the said Venkateswar Rao or from any body in the village, as alleged by the complainant
5. The allegations of the complainant that he was depending upon the deceased cows for milk and cost of each cow was Rs.15,000/- and that the complainant is entitled to 35,000/- compensation are all denied. The further allegations that the complainant approached the opposite parties number of times and the opposite parties promised to pay the demanded amount but postponed from time to time are also denied. The complaint may therefore be dismissed with costs.
6. Complainant's written arguments filed. No written arguments filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Oral arguments of both sides heard.
The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the compensation prayed for in the complaint, for the death of his cows or not?
Point:-
7. It is the case of the complainant that he is an agriculturist and on 01-07-2005 his two cows came into contact with a live wire which fell down in his field from the over head line, and due to electric shock both the cows died on the spot. It is his further case that falling of wire was informed by the villagers to the
Contd…4..
::4::
subordinates of the respondents several times but the live wire was left unattended
due to the sheer negligence of the opposite parties. The complainant is therefore entitled for compensation for the death of his cows. The defence is that there was no complaint to the opposite parties at any time from anybody about the hanging or falling of live wire in the field and there was no negligence on the part of the opposite parties, as the opposite parties were not at all aware of hanging or falling of the live wire in the field; therefore under the circumstances no negligence can be attributed to the opposite parties or their subordinates.
8. In this connection the learned counsel for the opposite parties relied upon a decision reported in (1999) 7 supreme court cases 298 and another decision reported in III (2004) CPJ 645, a decision of Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai.
9. The ratio in both the decisions is in support of the defence taken by the opposite parties.
10. The complainant has not filed any document in support of his contention that the villagers informed the subordinates of opposite parties about hanging of live electric wire in the field of the complainant and subsequently falling the same in the field of the complainant. The complainant has not even furnished at least name of one such villager and to whom he informed and produced affidavit of such villager in support of his contentions. In the absence of any such material from the complainant’s side it cannot be said that there was any negligence on the part of the opposite parties or his subordinates and that they were responsible for the death of two cows of the complainant.
Contd…5..
::5::
It is therefore held that the complainant is not entitled for the compensation prayed for in the complaint. The point is answered against the complainant.
11. In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to my dictation. Corrected and pronounced by us in this Open Forum on Friday, the 17th day of August, 2007.
President Male Member Lady Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR
Complainant Opposite parties
None None
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
Complainant Opposite Parties
Nil Nil
President Male Member Lady Member
District Consumers Forum, Khammam.
