::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.46/2017&47/2017.
Date of filing: 05.08.2017
Date of disposal: 31.08.2018.
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.
C.C.46/2017.
COMPLAINANT/S: 1. Vithal Rao @ Vithu S/o Ananthrao Kulkarni,
Age:40 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o Village Kherda-B,
Tq:Basavakalyan Dist: Bidar.
C.C.No.47/2017.
1. Laximikanth @ Achanna S/oAnanthrao Kulkarni,
Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture
R/o Village Kherda-B,
Tq: Basavakalyan Dist: Bidar.
( By Sri.D.M.Swamy.,Adv.)
VERSUS
C.C.No.46/2017 & 47/2017.
OPPONENT/S: 1) The Chairman/Managing Director,
GESCOM Division Kalburgi.
2). The Executive Engineer (Elecl)
GESCOM Bidar Division Bidar.
3). The Assistant Executive Engineer (Elecl)
GESCOM Sub Division Basavakalyan.
(By. Mahesh S.Patil., Adv.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.
In the two cases, both biological brothers have approached this Forum by filing complaints u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency of service against the opponents.
2. The cause of action (damage by electrical fire accident) being the same and both brothers holding contiguous patches of land in same survey number and village, and both of them filing similar complaints seeking relief, we propose to dispose off both cases by common order.
3. It is avered in the respective Complaints that, Sri. Vithal Rao @ Vithu (C.C.No.46/2017) is the rightful owner of land bearing Sy.No.83/A3, measuring totally Ac.3,07 guntas and Sri. Laxmikanth @ Achanna (C.C.No.47/2017) is the rightful owner of land bearing Sy.No.83/A1 of same measurement in village Kherda(B), Hobli- Rajeshwar, Tq: Basavakalyan, Dist: Bidar and the both are contiguous plots. Both the brothers had planted Sugar Cane crop to the extent of Ac.2.30 guntas in their respective holdings and the crops were 11(eleven) months old, ready to harvest.
4. It is claimed by both of them that, a Transformer has been installed in the land of Sri.Vithal Rao to Cater electricity to the water source of the complainants and also others. The transmission wire were passing over the lands of both complainants.
5. On 19.10.2015 at about 11.00 A.m.. The main electricity wire running over the lands of the complainants got snapped resulting generation of sparks from the fallen wires on the sugar cane field and the crops were destroyed in entirety, causing massive loss to both agriculturists. It is claimed that, each acre of land used to yield 100 M. T.S. of Sugar Cane and the rate per tone was Rs.2500/-. Both the brothers thereby have sustained losses to the tune of Rs.7,50,000/- each and further both of them have incurred expenditure@ Rs.50,000/- each to remove the burnt leftovers.
6. As corollary, it is further stated that, a report was filed with jurisdictional Police Station Mudbi, resulting registration of case bearing F.A.No.8/15 (common to both), the help of the fire brigade was obtained to douse the fire. The Police authorities have investigated the case, fire brigade had released a certificate. Further, the concerned Tahasildar on receipt of Police visited the spot and had drawn Panchananma. The officers of the Agriculture Department also have visited the spot and drawn Panchanma as well.
7. Both brothers have through Sri. Vithal Rao (complainant in C.C.No.46/2017) on several occasions demanded compensations from the opponents and since they did not pay any heed to the requests are before this forum by filing the present complaints.
8. The opponents have participated in the proceedings after notice through counsel and have filed identical written versions in both cases.
9. In the versions, the facts of land holding, plantation of crop, snapping of electricity wires, fertility of land and the burning of Sugar Cane crop are denied. However, installation of electrical Transformer in the land of Vithal Rao is admitted by the opponents. The opponents further deny that, th staffs were negligent and irregular. The opponents also dispute regarding the quantum of yield and assessment of loss and that, suitable reply was given to the parties apropos to their notice.
10. It is further contended that, the complainants have supplied canes to Sugar Factory and cleverly have remained silent to mention the same.
11. As a whole as per the submissions of the opponents, the complainants have not sustained any loss and they are not bound to pay any compensations.
12. Both sides have filed their respective evidence affidavits, documents and written arguments. Interrogatories were filed by the opponents on the aspects of yields and supply of sugar Canes to the factories and the points have been emphatically denied by the complainants.
13. Putting our anxious Considerations into the juxtaposed averments of the parties at feud, the following points arise for our considerations.
- Do the complainants prove that, there has been deficiency of service in the part of the opponents?
- Do the opponents prove that, the complainants have not sustained any loss?
- What orders?
14. Our answers to the points raised are as following:-
- In the affirmative?
- In the negative.
- As per final orders owing to the following:-
:: REASONS ::
15. Point (1): Inspite of feigning ignorance of everything and the tall denials of the opponents, it is borne out of documents like, R.T.C., fire brigade report, Panchanamas prepared by the Mudbi Police Station, Agriculture officer of Ryot Sampark Kendra, Color photos of the spot, the complainants have proven beyond doubt that, indeed, there was an inferno destroying Sugar Cane Crops grown in the respective separate fields of the complainants, their claims of compensation lodged with the opponents and legal notices being ignored, there is a deficiency service quite apparent and hence we answer this point in the affirmative.
16. Point (2): As inferred above, the Sugar Canes of the complainants were burnt due to sparks from the snapped electrical wires but may be on different extents, answers of which would be dealt in the succeeding paragraphs. But in the face of over whelming documents, the self serving assertions of the opponents cannot be given any credence and we answer this point in the negative.
17. Point (3): Though, the electrical fire accident has caused crop loss to both brothers, on the facts and circumstances and the documents produced, their losses have to be assessed separately.
18. The opponents have produced documents Annexure-R1. From the Naranja Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., Bidar, which reveals that, the complainant Vithal Rao in C.C.No.46/2017, had supplied totally 148.360M.T. of Sugar Cane to the factory @ Rs.1806.75 P.M.T. out of which 25.611 M.T. Crop were found burnt, for which Rs.9,604/- was deducted and remaining Rs.2,58,445/- was paid to him towards the price of supply. So there was a partial loss.
19. As far as Laximikanth, complainant in C.C.No.47/2017 is concerned, it has been made crystal clear in the same document that, he was not a member of the Society and has not supplied Sugar Cane to them. The opponents have not led any evidence that, said Laximikanth has supplied his produce to any other Sugar Factory. There by we have to infer that, there was total crop loss in his case, which would be almost equivalent to the yield of his brother i.e. 148.360 M.T. the value of which would work out t be 2,68,049.43ps. rounded up to Rs.2,68,050-00 @ Rs.1806.75 P.M.T.
20. We don’t find any credibility (s) of the brothers assertions that, each of them has spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- to cleanse up the field, because after all, the residual elements would be converted to excellent manures in course of time. Therefore, we pass the following:-
ORDER.
- The complaints are allowed in part.
- The opponents are hereby jointly and severally directed to reimburse a sum of Rs.9,604/- to Sri. Vithal Rao, complainant in C.C.No.46/2017 and a sum of Rs.2,68,050/- to Sri. Laximikanth, complainant in C.C.NO.47/2017. Both the awards would carry an interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation;
- The opponents are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards inconveniences and mental agonies together with further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to each of the complainants separately;
- The original order be kept in C.C.NO.46/2017 and a certified copy thereof in C.C.No.47/2017,
- Four weeks time granted to comply the order.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 31st day of August 2018).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant In C.C.No.46/2017.
- Annexure.A- R.T.C. in original of Survey NO.83/A3 of village
Kherda(B) of Tq: Basavakalyan Dist:Bidar. - Annexure.B– Copy of fire brigade report.
- Annexure.C- Copy of complaint of Vithal Rao filed in
F.A.NO.8/2015 before Mudbi Police Station. - Annexure. D– Copy of the letter daaaate:24.10.2015 to the Taluka
Executive Magistrate Basavakalyan of P.S.I. Mudbi
Police Station. - Annexure.E- Copy of Panchanama drawn by Mudbi Police Station
officials in F.A.No.8/2015. - Annexure.F- Copy of Panchanama date:20.10.2015 drawn by
Agriculture officer Royat Samparka Kendra
Rajeshwar Tq:Basavakalyan Dist: Bidar. - Annexure.Gto K- (I-ommited) 4 colour photographs of scene of
occurance. - Annexure.L- office copy of legal notice date:10.02.2016.
- Annexure.M to P- (o-ommited) Postal receipts.
- Annexure.Q to S- Postal acknowledgements.
Documents produced by the complainant In C.C.No.46/2017.
- Annexure.A- R.T.C. of survey No.83/A1 of village Kherda (B).
- Annexure.B to G- 6 colour photo graphs of scene ofoccurnace.
- Annexure-H-Office copy of legal notice date:10.02.2016.
- Annexure.Jto L- Postal receipts.
- Annexure.M to P- (o-Omamited) Postal acknowledgement.
Document produced by the Opponents C.C.No.46/2017.
- Annexure.R.1- Original letter date:13.01.2017 of M/s Naranja
Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Niyamita Bidar in the
address of Assistant Executive Engineer (O&M)
Basavakalyan, along with two account statement.
Document produced by the Opponents C.C.NO.47/2017.
- Annexure.R.1- Attested copy of the letter mentioned above of with
enclosures.
Witness examined.
Complainant C.C.No.46/2017.
- P.W.1- Sri Vithall Rao @ Vithu (the complainant).
Complainant C.CNo.47/2017.
- Sri Laximikanth @ Achanna (complainant).
Opponent C.C.NO.46/2017.
- R.W.1- Sri Ganapathi S/o Tippanna Assistant Executive Engineer
GESCOM Humnabad.
Opponent C.C.No.47/2017.
- R.W.1- Sri Ganapathi S/o Tippanna Assistant Executive Engineer
GESCOM Humnabad.
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Jagannath Prasad
Member. President.
