Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/55/2014

N.Lakshmi Narayanamma, W/o. Late N.Gurrappa Naidu, aged 58 years - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chairman/CMD - Opp.Party(s)

M.Vinod

30 Mar 2016

ORDER

Filing Date: 20.10.2014

Order Date:30.03.2016

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

 

 

C.C.No.55/2014

 

Between

 

N.Lakshmi Narayanamma,

W/o. late. N.Gurrappa Naidu,

Hindu, aged about 58 years,

Residing at Kamma Kandriga Village,

G.R.Palli Post,

Ramachandrapuram Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                              … Complainant

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         The Chairman / CMD,

            APSPDCL,

            Near S.G.S.College,

            Tirupati,

            Chittoor District.     

 

2.         The Superintendent Engineer,

            A.P.Transco,

            Near S.G.S.College,

            Tirupati,

            Chittoor District.

 

3.         The Divisional Engineer,

            APSPDCL,

            NGOs Colony,

            Puttur,

            Chittoor District.

 

4.         The Assistant Engineer (O&M),

            A.P.Transco,

            Sub-Station at Nadavaluru,

            Office at Kuppam Baduru,

            Ramachandrapuram Mandal,

            Chittoor District.

 

5.         The Lineman,

            by name Jagadeesh,                                                            

A.P.Transco,

Sub-Station at Nadavaluru,

Ramachandrapuram Mandal,

Chittoor District.                                                                  …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 09.03.16 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.O.Muneiah, Sri.M.Vinod, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.P.Balaram, counsel for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- spent by the complainant with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization, 2) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages sustained by the complainant, 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony caused by the opposite parties,    4) to direct the opposite parties to pay costs of the litigation and 5) to pass such other orders as the Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.  

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:- that the complainant is the owner of the land in an extent of Ac.1.45 cents as shown in the schedule. She got two agricultural electrical connections vide 1) 5324104000224 and 2) 53410400010. In the said land, she raised sugarcane, which was grown-up to harvest stage. While so, on 13.10.2013 at about 1.45 a.m., the complainant was waiting at the field for supply of water, at that time, all of a sudden, fire broke-up from the electrical wires due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, as a result of which the entire sugarcane was burnt. Fire Service Officials, Agriculture Department and Tahsildar, inspected the land and gave certificates. Opposite parties did not respond to compensate the complainant despite notices. Hence the complaint.

            3.  Opposite party No.3, filed written version and the same was adopted by opposite parties 1, 2, 4 and 5, denying the complaint allegations and further contending that the complaint is not maintainable as per Section-168 of Electricity Act and Section-82 of Electricity Act 1948. Complainant is using the electrical energy free of cost, as such she is not a consumer within the meaning of Section-2(i)(d) of C.P.Act 1986. Electrical lines are passing on the edge of the land in S.No.118/5 but not through the land. No complaint is received from any of the villagers including the complainant herein, at any point of time, stating that the electrical lines are running in low level. Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Agricultural Officer, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, are not competent authorities to give such certificates. The electrical lines are at a height of 20 to 25 feet from the earth. Even if a spark is momentary, it will be extinguished and evaporated within 1 or 2 meters height before reaching the sugarcane. As could be seen from the certificate issued by Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, the total crop in 1.45 acres gutted into fire. As per Mandal Agricultural Officer certificate, total crop burnt is only 1.0 acre of land. As per A.P.Fire Service Authorities certificate, total sugarcane plantation burnt is about   5 acres. Thus the certificates issued by the said officers are disputing with each other. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and prays  the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            4.  Complainant filed the affidavits P.W.1 and P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. Opposite parties filed affidavit as R.W.1. Exs.A1 to A9 were marked for the complainant. No documents were marked for the opposite parties.

            5.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether the complainant established that the sugarcane in Ac.1.45 cents of

                   land of complainant was burnt due to short circuit?

            (ii)  Whether the complainant has established the negligence or deficiency in

                   service on the part of the opposite parties?            

            (iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            (iv)  To what relief?

            6.  Point No.(i):-  in order to prove this point, the complainant has to establish that she raised sugarcane in her total extent of land admeasuring Ac.1.45 cents as shown in Ex.A1 pattadar passbook stood in the name of the complainant. That the said land was in single bit of land or quite situated in different places in different survey numbers. There was no other lands involved in between each item of land of the complainant Because the field map that was available in the record shows that S.Nos.118/5, 118/6, 118/7, 118/9, 118/12, 118/14A and 118/16 are situated in different places and in between the S.Nos.118/9 and 118/12 there are lands in S.Nos.118/10, 118/11, similarly in between S.Nos.118/14A and 118/16 there is another land in S.Nos.118/15. It is not the case of the complainant that in S.No.118/10, 11 and 15 no sugarcane was raised by the land owners. If once the fire was broke-out due to short circuit or otherwise, the fire will caught the entire land that situated in midst of the lands, apart from the land of complainant, but there is no complaint from any other ryots admittedly with regard to burning of sugarcane in other lands of the ryots, those situated in between the land bits of the complainant. One cannot except that only sugarcane crop of complainant in her fields will burnt leaving the sugarcane of other ryots that situated in between each bit of the land of complainant.

            7.  The complainant for the reasons best known to her did not file any photograph of burnt sugarcane. The statement given in the paper publication, which was marked as Ex.A3, is the statements given by the complainant, that too without photographs of the burnt sugarcane field. Apart from it, the certificate issued by A.P.State Disaster Response & Fire Services Department under Ex.A4, which is called Fire Attendance Certificate dt:12.11.2013 shows that description of the property damaged was approximately 5 acres sugarcane plantation, and no photographs were filed by them also. The certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, under Ex.A5 shows that the complainant is having land in S.No.118/5 etc. with an extent of 1.45 acres classified as wet lands in Nadavalur Revenue Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, and on 13.10.2013 due to electrical origin the sugarcane crop was gutted in the said land with an extent of 1.45 acres as per revenue enquiry, and as per the certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer, Ramachandrapuram Mandal under Ex.A6, extent of land in which sugarcane crop was cultivated is only 1.0 acre out of 1.45 acres. The above certificates are contrary to each other i.e. between Exs.A4, A5 and A6 in respect of extent of land that was subject to fire accident. None of the officials have filed the photographs of the burnt sugarcane. Simply by oral statements or hear-say evidence, it cannot be said that the complainant has proved that she raised sugarcane in entire extent of Ac.1.45 cents and the entire sugarcane was caught fire on 13.10.2013 Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish that the sugarcane crop of entire Ac.1.45 cents was burnt due to short circuit.

            8.  Point No.(ii):-  in order to prove the negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties, atleast there should be a representation to the opposite parties that the live wires running over the lands of the complainant are in low level and that they are expecting some sort of danger and damage to the crops. The learned counsel for the complainant during the oral arguments represented that they made representation to the opposite parties several times to correct the low level live wires. But no copy of such complaint either from complainant or from any of the villagers was filed to substantiate the complainant’s version. Unless the complainant establishes that the wires are running in low level even by filing photographs of such nature, it cannot be said that the complainant has established that there is negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties. Under those circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant also failed to prove the alleged negligence or deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.

            9.  Point No.(iii):- in view of our discussion on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish that her sugarcane crop in Ac.1.45 cents was gutted into fire and that there was negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for.

            10. Point No.(iv):-  in view of our holding on points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for and the complaint, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.

            In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.                  

 

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 30^th day of March, 2016.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                                                                 

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT.

 

PW-1: N. Lakshmi Narayanamma (Chief Affidavit filed).

PW-2: K. Kumaraswamy Naidu     (3^rd Party Affidavit filed).

 

    WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTYS.

 

RW-1: B. Balaji (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

              EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex-A)	Description of Documents
	Original pattadhar pass book filed on behalf of the complainant. Patta No. 440.
	Original Demand notice and paid bill receipts and electricity bills.
	Paper publication on 14.10.2013 filed on behalf of the complainant.
	A photo copy of Fire Attendance Certificate issued by Station Fire Officer, A.P.State Disaster Response and Fire Services Department, Tirupati. Dt: 12.11.2013.
	Certificate (Original) issued by Tahsildar, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Chittoor District, filed on behalf of Complainant. Dt: 30.12.2013.
	Damages estimated certificate (Original) issued by the Mandal Agricultural Officer, Ramachandrapuram (Mandal), Chittoor Dt. 13.10.2013.
	Legal notice issued by complainant to the Opposite Parties with postal receipts. Dt: 04.02.2014.
	Postal acknowledgements in 4 filed on behalf of complainant.
	Reply notice issued by opposite party to complainant. Dt: 25.03.2014.

 

                          EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/S

 

NIL 

 

 

                                                                                                                       Sd/-

                                                                                                               President

             // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

           

 

 Copies to:-    1. The complainant.

                       2. The opposite parties.