J U D G E M E N T
1. The complainant filed the complaint against the OPs U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. The complaint in brief is that, the complainant is an agriculturist having 03-acres of agriculture land. He is also having buffalos and is involved in diary farming. On 23.07.2011, the complainant’s son Mallikarjun took their she buffalos for grazing behind Chintala Thimmappa temple in the land of Eranna Kabber. At that time, there the electrical live wire passing over the said land was cut and had fallen on the said land. The she buffalo belonging to the complainant stepped on the said live wire fallen on the ground and died due to electrocution. This was due to negligence on the part of the OPs, who allowed the live wire to fall on the ground, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part. Regarding this incident, the complainant lodged complaint before Saidapur Police station on 24.7.2011 and the complaint was registered in AF No.13/2011 and the Police came and prepared the spot panchanama and the Veterinary doctor conducted the postmortem on the carcass of the dead she buffalo and opined in the PM report that the death was due to electrocution. The dead she buffalo was aged 6 years and was worth Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and was giving milk of 8 to 10 liters in the morning as well as in the evening. Due to the death of the she buffalo, the complainant suffered loss of Rs.200/- per day. As she buffalo died due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs’ electricity company, they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. They paid Rs.2,500/- to the complainant towards the death of she buffalo and promised to pay the balance amount to him. But they did not pay the same. Therefore, the complainant seeking reliefs as prayed for.
3. The OPs filed the written version stating that the contents of para-2 of the complaint are false and hence denied. The OPs do not know whether the complainant is an agriculturist and whether his agriculture income is sufficient for him or not. The OPs do not know whether the complainant is doing diary business. The contents of para-3 of the complaint are false. It is false to say that, on 23.07.2011, the son of the complainant had been to the land of Beerappa for grazing she buffalos, which is behind the Thimmappa temple and at that time, the electric wire from KEB was lying on the ground and she buffalo belonging to the complainant stepped on the live wire due to which its death occurred. It is also false to say that due to negligent act of the OPs, the incident had happened. The contents of para-5 of the complaint are false. It is false to say that in the opinion given by the veterinary doctor, it is stated that the death of the she buffalo was due to electrocution. The contents of para-6 of the complaint are also denied. It is denied that, the she buffalo was aged about 6 years and worth Rs.35,000/- to Rs.45,000/-. It is false to say that the said she buffalo was giving 8 to 10 liters milk in the morning and evening and the complainant was earning daily Rs.200/- out of it and due to the death of the said she buffalo, he sustained loss. The contents of para-7 of the complaint are false. It is false to say that there was negligence on the part of the OPs. False allegation is made in the complaint only to receive compensation by hook or crook. The OPs are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. The contents of para-8 of the complaint is correct to the extent of payment of Rs.2,500/-. Other allegations are denied. The OPs are not at all concerned to the complainant and loss of his property. He is not a consumer of the OPs. The complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The contents of para-9 of the complaint are denied. After receipt of Rs.2,500/-, the complainant has not at all approached the OPs and has not asked for more compensation. The contents of para-10 of the complaint are denied. The complainant is not entitled for any amount as sought for by him. The contents of para-11 of the complaint are denied. The complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant after receipt of Rs.2,500/- has given undertaking that Rs.2,500/- is received as full settlement of the claim and he was fully satisfied with the receipt of Rs.2,500/-. The complaint does not come within the purview of this Forum. The complaint filed before the Police and the one filed before this forum are quite contradictory. The compensation sought for by the complainant is exorbitant. Therefore, the complaint be dismissed, in the interest of justice.
4. The complainant to prove his case, as his evidence, filed his affidavit, which is marked as PW-1 and got marked 07 documents as Exh.P-1 to P-7. The OPs as their evidence, filed one affidavit, which is marked as RW-1 and got marked 01 document as Exh.R-1.
5. Heard the oral arguments on both sides.
6. The points that arise for our consideration are;
1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the OPs towards him, as alleged in the complaint?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs prayed for in the complaint?
3) What order?
7. The findings on the above points are as under;
1) In the affirmative.
2) Partly in the affirmative.
3) As per final order for the following;
:: REASONS ::
8. Point No.1 :
Though the OPs denied the allegations made in para-3 of the complaint wherein the complainant gave narration of the incident which culminated in the death of she buffalo belonging to him, subsequent act of the OPs that they paid Rs.2,500/- to the complainant as compensation for the death of his she buffalo clearly establishes that she buffalo belonging to the complainant died due to electrocution when it came in contact with the electric live wire of the OPs’ electricity company. Besides this, the complaint lodged by the complainant before Saidapur Police station which is marked as Exh.P-1, panchanama drawn by the Police which is marked as Exh.P-2, Postmortem examination report given by the Veterinary doctor which is marked as Exh.P-3, report of the OP-3 which is marked as Exh.P-4 as well as report of the OP-2 which is marked as Exh.P-5 clearly establish the fact that the complainant’s she buffalo when taken for grazing by his son died due to electrocution when it stepped on the live wire of the electricity company belonging to the OPs. The live wire got cut and fell on the ground is admitted by the OP-3 as well as by the OP-2 in their reports which are marked as Exh.P-4 and Exh.P-5 respectively. Leaving a live wire on the ground by the OPs’ electricity company which poses danger both to men and animals is negligence on the part of the OPs’ electricity company and it amounts to deficiency in service on their part. The contention of the OPs that the complainant is not their consumer and therefore, he is not entitled for compensation as claimed, cannot be accepted at all, because even if the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs, if any loss of life of animal or human beings is occurred due to negligence on the part of the OPs, they are liable to pay compensation to the aggrieved person and in support of this opinion arrived at by us, we rely on the decision of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in II (2013) CPJ 186 (Ganga Patil, Prabhakar Patil Vs. Executive Engineer (Electrical), O & M Division-II, GESCOM and Anr) wherein the facts of this case are similar to the said case and one of the contentions raised by the OPs’ electricity company in the said case is that the complainants were not consumers as defined under Consumer Protection Act and there was no relationship between the complainants and the OPs and rejecting the said contention the District Forum awarded compensation to the complainants in the said case which is not challenged by the OPs’ electricity company though the complainants went in appeal before the State Commission and the National Commission seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Forum. As the complainant has established deficiency in service on the part of the OPs’ electricity company, this point is answered in the affirmative.
9. Point No.2 :
As the complainant has established deficiency in service on the part of the OPs’ electricity company, he is entitled for compensation for the death of his she buffalo. The complainant in his complaint stated that, his she buffalo was worth Rs.35,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. However, he has not produced any material to substantiate this claim. On the other hand, in the complaint Exh.P-1 and panchanama Exh.P-2, the value of she buffalo is mentioned as Rs.15,000/-. In the postmortem report Exh.P-3 also the Veterinary doctor opined that she buffalo was worth Rs.15,000/- at the time of its death. Therefore, those documents are to be accepted and accordingly we arrive at the value of the dead she buffalo as Rs.15,000/- and the complainant is entitled for the said amount from the OPs’ electricity company. However, Exh.R-1 produced by the OPs’ to show that the complainant had received Rs.2,500/- towards full and final settlement of his claim, cannot be relied on, because there is no evidence which shows that the complainant had put his LTM on it after knowing the contents of the same. There is every possibility the said undertaking relied on by the OPs might have been obtained by them without informing the complainant as to what it actually reads. Considering these aspects, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.15,000/- towards death of his she buffalo along with interest and cost of the proceedings, which shall be as per final order. Accordingly, this point is answered partly in the affirmative.
10. Point No.3 :-
In view of the discussions made under Point No.1 and 2, we pass the following;
:: ORDER ::
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed.
The complainant is entitled to recover sum of Rs.15,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the complaint i.e 22-07-2013 till its realization, from the OPs’ electricity company.
The complainant is also entitled to recover sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings, from the OPs’ electricity company.
The OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay the above said amounts to the complainant within two months from the date of this order.
Inform the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open Court on this the 7th day of December 2013)
