Karnataka

Gadag

CC/1/2016

Iranna Urf Veerappa. S. Desi Urf Sakri - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Executive Engineer, HESCOM - Opp.Party(s)

R.B.Chalmarad

09 Sep 2016

ORDER

JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY

SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT:

The complainant has filed this Complaint against the Opposite Parties (herein after referred in short as OPs) u/s 12 (2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service against OPs.

2.    The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant owns an agricultural land in RS No 30/1+1 of 10acres 6 Guntas where the complainant had dinged a bore well and obtained electricity connection from Op No 2 the complainant sowed sugar cane crop on 5 acres of his land. On 4.1.2013 at 12:30 pm the transformer installed in the Bandh of complainant’s land short circuited and the crop of sugar cane yield got fire and the yield was completely burnt.

3.      The father of complainant Shivappa Fakeerappa Desai  supplied the remaining yield to op no3 .Prior to this relative of the complainant and others have complained the Op No 2 that the transformer and the electric pools erected near the land are creating problems but the opno2 failed to repair the same nor took any action , the relative of complainant lodge a written complaint in this regard which had been sent by the registered post to op the Op No1and 2 and Ops did not came forward to repair the same. Further the complainant submitted that the short circuit occurred due to the non-maintenance of the transformer by the Ops. The complainant stated that he approach by Op No 2 claiming a compensation of Rs 4,000,00 and he had submitted all a the records  to the Op No 1 & 2 but the ops had not paid any compensation. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 30.11.2015 which had been received by the ops but not replied. Hence this complainant prayed to order the Ops to pay a compensation of Rs 6,000,00/- for the loss occurred and Rs 1,000,00/- towards mental agony.      

4.  The complaint is registered and notice were ordered as such OPs appeared through their advocate and filed their Vakalat and Written Version. The Op No 3 had not filed any written version.

 

Brief facts of the Written Version of OP No1 & 2:

5. That the OPs had denied the contents of the Complaint and further stated that it is false that on 4.1.2013 the DP and Electric polls are short circuited and got fired so that the sugar cane crop in RS No 30/1+1 was destroyed the sugar cane crop. Further the OP had denied that no complaint had been made through the registered post in this regard and no loss had been suffered by the complainant.

6.      Further, OP No 1 and 2 stated that there was heavy storm on 4.1.2013 at 12:30 pm the sugar cane crops on the bandh having a height of 14ft came in contact with the live electrical wires and the flowers of the sugar cane burnt and sparks fallen on the crop caused the fire which is not in the control of Op’s, There was no any technical fault for the cause of electrical short circuit. Hence Ops had not made any deficiency in his service, further Ops had stated that they are not liable to pay any compensation for the complainant.

7.     In the background of the above said pleadings, the Complainant has examined PW1 in her support of the allegation. The documents produced are:

1. EX C1 records of rights.

2. EX C2 to C7 photos of the field.

3. EX C8 copy of the complaint.

4. EX C9 Panchanama.

5. EX C10 Police report.

6. EX C11 Emergency Fire engine report.

7. EX C12 Village Accountant certificate.

8. EX C13 Yield Certificate.

9. EX C14 Letter to section office.

10. EX C15 Letter to Asst Executive Engineer.

11. EX C16 & C17 Letter from HESCOM to complainant.

12. EX C18 Letter from OP No3 to OP No 2.

13. EX C19 Bill of Op No 3.

14. EX C20 Legal notice.

15. EX C21 Postal receipts.

16. EX C22 to C24 Postal Acknowledgement.

17. EX C25 Notary copy of Aadhar Card.

These documents have been marked as EX C1 to C25 in the defence of the Complainant. On the other hand, Ops filed the Written Version one Sri. Veerappa Sajjanar, Assistant Executive Engineer, HESCOM, Ron had swear on behalf of the Op No1 and 2 and filed Chief Affidavit and following documents had been marked as EX OP1 to EX OP3 on behalf of Op No 1 and 2.

1. Report of section officer.
2. Letter to Chief Secretary.
3. Report from Asst Enginner.

On perusal of above documents and arguments heard on both the sides, we conceived that the dispute is regarding the Burning of sugar cane crop. This being the pleadings, the points arises before us for adjudication are as follows:

 

1.	Whether the Complainant proves that the OP made any deficiency in service?
2.   3.	Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief?   What Order?

 

Our Answer to the above Points are:-

Point No.1 – Affirmative,

Point No.2 – Partly Affirmative,

Point No.3 - As per the final order.

 

8.      On consideration of pleading, objection, evidence, documents and arguments of the parties, we answer the above points as under:

 

                        R E A S O N S

 9.  POINT NO.1 and 2:  Since point No.1 and 2 are identical and to avoid the repetition of the fact we consider both the points together for discussion.

 

10.    The Complainant had sowed sugar cane crop in his agricultural land in RA No 30/1+1 of Gulgundi village Hulealur Hubli, Ron Taluq, Gadag Dist in total 10acres of 6 gunta of land, The complainant has sowed sugar cane crop in about 5 acres which was abort to harvest. On 4.1.2013 at 12:30 pm the crop of the sugar cane got fired due to the short circuit in the transformer by the spark to the polls serially erected near the land of complainant. This is the pleadings of the complainant the Op had denied the complaint and further stated that the short circuit in the transformer due to the natural calamity but not due to any technical fault.

   11.      On perusal of the document on record by the complainant marked as EX C2 to EX C7 speaks that The crop had got fired and burnt to some extent The documents marked EX C8 says that the complainant had filed and police complaint on the same date of incident EX C9 The panchanama prepared by the police had clearly notified that the fire was due to the short circuit in the transformer further the department of fire and emergency also issued a certificate that the crop caught fire, EX C11 produced in this support. Even from the village accountant wide EX C12, Assistant Director of Agriculture has submitted yield report by this it is very much clear that the crop of sugar cane in the complainant field got fired due to the short circuit of the transformer, The Op no 1 & 2 have taken precautionary measures in sensitive areas like this and also it is the duty of the Op’s to take care that the incidents like this may not happen. When the complainant had  approached the Op no 1 & 2 to claim the compensation the Op’s had asked the complainant to produce the documents required, Wide letter dated 10.01.2013 and 22.03.2013 marked as EX C16 and EX C17 even after the submission of the documents the Op had failed to compensate the complainant for his loss.

 

12.  When the electricity live wires on the electric polls are tightly tide if there is a chance that phase and neutral wires come in contact there will be a spark in this situation as a precautionary measures the Op’s have to insulate the wires but the Ops have failed to do so and it shows the negligency of the OP. Hence the Op had committed the deficiency in service hence complainant is entitle for Partial relief.  

 

          13.  POINT No.3:  For the reasons and discussion made above and finding on the above points, we proceed to pass following:  

 

 

//ORDER//

1. This Complaint is partially allowed.
2. The Op No 1 and 2 are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to the complainant towards burnt crop along with the interest @ the rate of 9% from the date of filling.
3. The Op No 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs 5,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs 1,000/- towards litigation charges.
4. The Op’s are directed to comply the order within 30 days from this order failing which Op No 1 and 2 are liable to pay interest at 12% till realization.
5. Case is dismissed against Op No 3.

6.  Send a copy of this Order to both parties free of cost.  

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 9^th day of September 2016)

 

 

Member

Member

President