BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.
DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF JULY 2022
PRESENT
MR. RAVISHANKAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI : MEMBER
APPEAL NOs. 1589/2012 & 1600/2012
APPEAL NO.1589/2012
1. | H. Manjappa, S/o Late Sri Hanumanthappa, Aged about 44 years, Agriculturist, Jogimatti Road, 4th Cross, Prashantha Nagara, Chitradurga. | ……Appellant/s |
2. | D.H. Mahanthesh, S/o Hanumanthappa, Aged about 50 years, Agriculturist, R/o Matsamudra, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. (By Sri S.C. Vijaya Kumar) | |
V/s
1. | The Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Hiriyur Circle, T.B. Circle, Hiriyur. | ..…Respondent/s |
2. | The Asst. Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Challakere, Chitradurga District. | |
3. | The Section Officer, BESCOM, Doddaullarthi, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. (By Sri H.V. Devaraju for R-1 to 3) | |
APPEAL NO.1600/2012
1. | The Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Hiriyur Circle, T.B. Circle, Hiriyur. | ……Appellant/s |
2. | The Asst. Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Challakere, Chitradurga District. | |
3. | The Section Officer, BESCOM, Doddaullarthi, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. (By Sri H.V. Devaraju) | |
V/s
1. | H. Manjappa, S/o Late Sri Hanumanthappa, Aged about 44 years, Agriculturist, Jogimatti Road, 4th Cross, Prashantha Nagara, Chitradurga. | ..…Respondent/s |
2. | D.H. Mahanthesh, S/o Hanumanthappa, Aged about 50 years, Agriculturist, R/o Matsamudra, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga District. (By Sri S.C. Vijaya Kumar) | |
COMMON ORDER
MR. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The appellants/complainants have preferred the Appeal No. 1598/2012 for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the District Commission and the appellants/respondents have preferred the Appeal No.1600/2012 to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission. In both these appeals, the appellants and respondents are one and the same. The matter in issue is also the same. Hence, both these appeals are being disposed-off by a common order.
2. The brief facts of the case are as hereunder;
It is the case of the complainants that they have obtained electricity connection to their irrigation pump set under RR.No. ZCKIP 3991 for the purpose of irrigating their lands. On 04.03.2010 due to high voltage supply of electricity, the meter was caught fire and burnt switch boards, ten pocket of maize, household articles, pesticides, cable wires, plastic tarpals, cash of Rs.5,000/- and even the entire hut was burnt and suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. Immediately they approached the fire extinguisher office to put off the fire. After they informed the Opposite Party company for compensation towards loss for which the Opposite Party not settled the claim made by the complainant. Hence, alleging deficiency in service filed a complaint before the District Commission. After trial, the District Commission allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 to pay Rs.73,000/- with interest.
3. Aggrieved by the said order, both the complainants and Opposite Parties have filed these appeals. Heard both sides.
4. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order of the District Commission, it is an admitted fact that due to fire, the hut of the complainant was burnt. The only dispute raised by the Opposite Party is that on the date of fire accident i.e. on 04.03.2010 there was no electricity supply at all. Hence, the consequences of fire on hut and burning of the articles due to high voltage of the electricity does not arise at all, hence, submits to set aside the order passed by the District Commission.
5. The District Commission in the reasons expressed their opinion that the fire extinguisher report clearly discloses that it is only due to the high voltage of electricity supply and even the Opposite Parties have not produced any materials to show that there was any electricity supply on the particular date of accident. It is pertinent to note that the Opposite Parties have produced computer developed copy to show that the electricity was not supplied on that particular day. It is not an authenticated document, hence, allowed the complaint
6. We are of the opinion that the Opposite Parties have failed to establish that the fire accident was occurred due to any other reasons and at the same time the complainants have produced fire extinguisher report to show that the hut and articles kept in the hut was burnt and even the meter board was burnt. It is the clear evidence when the meter board was burnt it is only due to either heavy supply of electricity or by the short circuit. Hence, the District Commission has rightly appreciated the evidence and documents produced by the complainant and allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay Rs.73,000/- considering the loss suffered by the complainant. We consider that the amount of compensation directed to be payable is sufficient and in accordance with law. Apart from that the complainants have not assessed the loss apart from the assessment made by the police at the time of mahazar. We found that there is no any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the District Commission. No interference is required. Hence, the following;
ORDER
The Appeal Nos. 1598/2012 and 1600/2012 are dismissed.
The amount in deposit in Appeal No.1600/2012 shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant.
Keep the original order in Appeal No.1589/2012 and a copy of the same in Appeal No.1600/2012.
Forward free copies to both parties.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
KCS*
