-::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::
C.C. No.86/2018.
Date of filing: 06.12.2018.
Date of disposal: 30.08.2019.
P R E S E N T:-
(1) Shri. Ashok Hanamant Malaghan
B.Com., LL.B.,( Spl.)
President. ( I/C )
(2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),
B.A.LL.B. (Spl.)
Member.
COMPLAINANT/S Baburao, S/o Manikrao Patil,
Occ: Agriculture & Advocate,
R/o Village Wanjar Kheda,
Tq. Bhalki, Dist.Bidar.
( By Sri. Deshpande P.M., Adv.)
VERSUS
OPPONENT/S: 1. The Executive Engineer,
Gescom, Bidar,K.E.B. Road, Bidar.
2. The Asst. Executive Engineer
Gescom, Bhalki,
Opp. KSRTC Bus Stand,
Tq.Bhalki,Dist.Bidar.
( By Sri. Santosh V.B. Adv.)
:: J UD G M E N T ::
By Shri. Ashok Hanamant Malaghan, President.
This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 (a) R/W Sec. 3 of C.P.Act., 1986 against the O.Ps. for claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/- with interest from the O.Ps. on account of burnt of his sugarcane crop due negligent act of the O.Ps.
2. Brief facts of the case of the complaint are:
The complainant is the owner of agriculture land Sy.no.41/3 to the extent of 3 acres 11 guntas of Wanjarkheda village, Tq.Bhalki,Dist.Bidar. That, on 30.01.2018 at about 3.00 p.m. due to heavy wind the live wire installed by O.Ps. and passing through the land of the complainant found fallen on the sugarcane crop in his above said land and electric short circuit took place, resulted into burnt of 1 acre of sugarcane crop in the said land, but the remaining sugarcane crop was already cut off.
3. The complainant has approached a police station and has registered F.A.No.01/2018. Due to above said incident sugarcane crop to the extent of 1 acre as well as the drip irrigation pipe laying in the said land were burnt. Hence the complainant has put to total loss of Rs.3,50,000/-
4. The complainant has reported the matter to the concerned fire brigade, Revenue Officer and also the O.P./Gescom and also to the Asst. Director of Agriculture, Bhalki. The above said incident was mainly caused and the sugarcane crop and drip pipes were burnt only on account of gross negligence and careless act of the O.Ps., as they have not maintained the live wires properly but was in hazardous condition which was likely to affect on the public life and on their property. Hence, the O.Ps. have utterly failed and shown their dereliction in discharging their service/duties. The complainant is a consumer of O.Ps. and the electricity department, because being a citizen, was paying the tax, cess and other charges to the panchayat, Municipalities, Corporation in the farm of electricity, sanitation, Swatcha Abhiyan, Education, Health and much more. In this regard the complainant has issued legal notice to the O.P no.1. for payment of loss caused to him. But, O.P no.1. has not replied the same. Hence, he prayed to allow the complaint against O.Ps.
5. On the other hand the O.Ps. have filed their written version contending that, the complaint is false, baseless, and same has been filed with an intention to take undue benefits from the O.Ps. The complainant has falsely contended that, he has planted the sugarcane crop to the extent of 3 acres 11 guntas, but infact the complainant has never planted the sugarcane in his land and the complainant was not produced any documents to show that, he has planted the sugarcane plants in his land. It is false to show that, on 30.01.2018 at about 3.00 p.m. due wind, the snagged live wire installed and passing through the land of the complainant was found fallen on sugarcane crop and due to which fire took place and one acre of sugarcane crop found burnt totally. But in fact there was no standing crop of sugarcane in the land of the complainant as alleged. But, the sugarcane fodder was lying there which was after cutting of sugarcane crop. The said sugarcane podder was dry and to remove the said fodder it might have been shut fired by the land lord himself or his servant and as such there was no electric fire which was burnt out the sugarcane crop as alleged by the complainant. The complainant has filed false complaint before the police station by influencing his political power. The fire brigade authority, Revenue officer and also Asst. Director Bhalki have not at all conducted any panchanama or submitted any report in this regard. Hence the complainant has created false documents which are irrelevant and the photographs submitted by the complainant are not genuine and are highly not believable. Hence, it is submitted that, there is no negligence on the part of the Gescom O.Ps. in maintaining live wires installed through the land of the complainant. The complainant is not a consumer against the O.Ps. The alleged complaint before the Police station has been lodged on 31.01.2019 only after thought as there was no reasons for causing delay in filing the above complaint, and as such the police have not conducted any panchanama about burning of sugarcane crop. The complainant has submitted his application before the O.P. on 02.02.2018 which is also too late, which was after one month after the alleged incident. The officials of O.Ps. have visited the spot of the alleged incident, but there was no sugarcane burnt but some fodder and grass burnt due to negligence of complainant. The complainant has not mentioned or produced R.R. number or any electricity bill to show that, he is a consumer of O.Ps. The live wire installed by Gescom as per the norms, rules and regulations of electricity Act and the guidelines of the department. The live wires were installed more than 18 feet height from the ground so, it is clearly shows that, there is no chances of short circuit as alleged by the complainant. Apart from this the H.T. live wires are very tight fixing and there was no possibilities of any short circuit. It is further submitted that, the O.P. department visited the spot and made enquiry and was found that, there was no any drip pipes were burnt, but the only some guntas fodder/grass is burnt, which was also due to negligence act of the complainant or his servant. Under these circumstances as stated above the complaint filed by the complainant is deserved to be dismissed with costs.
6. Considering the above said facts and circumstances and on the basis of pleadings of both the parties the following points arose for our consideration.
- Whether the complainant proves that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of the Opponents?
- Whether the complainant is entitled any reliefs claimed ?
- What orders?
7. Our answers to the above points are as follows:-
- In the Affirmative.
- Partly in the Affirmative.
- As per the final order owing to the following:-
8. Point No.1
In this case both the parties have filed their evidence
Affidavits coupled with their supporting documents. The complainant has filed 12 documents under Annexure P.1 to P.13 and the O.Ps. have produced 4 documents under Annexure R.1 to R.4.
9. The learned counsel for the complainant has mainly contended that, being a owner of land R.S. number 41/03 of Wanjarkhed village, the complainant has grown sugarcane crops in his said land to the extent of 3 acres 11 guntas out of which, two acres of sugarcane crop was already dispose off, but remaining crop to the extent of one acre about to cut off. Such being the fact on 30.01.2018 at about 3.00 p.m. on account of heavy wind there was a short circuit in the live wires which were passing through the land of the complainant, on account of such short circuit the fire sparks are fallen on the standing sugarcane crop and thereby the entire crop of the complainant was set fired within short time including the drip wires installed in the said land for irrigation purpose.. Hence, the complainant has in all sustained loss to the extent of Rs.3,50,000/- which has caused him great mental shock and mental agony. The learned counsel for the complainant further submits that, the O.Ps. s failed to maintain the live wire in proper condition and on account of their careless attitude, there is a sparks found in the live wire which has caused loss to the standing crop of the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled to recover the said loss from the O.Ps. as the said electric/accident burnt has been mainly caused due to dereliction of duties/ service of O.Ps. Hence, O.Ps. are liable to answer the claim of the complainant. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the Advocate for the complainant has sighted and has drawn the attention of the Forum on the documents produced by the complainant. So, he argued that, the said documents are clearly evident that, the above said incident was mainly caused on account of negligent act of the O.Ps.
10. On the other hand the learned Advocate for the O.Ps. has mainly argued that, the complainant is not a consumer and he has not grown any sugarcane crop in his above said land and after intimation to the O.Ps., their officials have visited the spot and noticed that, there was no sugarcane crop at all in the land of the complainant. But, it is submitted that, some fodder and grass in the said land are burnt. So, the complainant has falsely claimed that, there was a loss of his sugarcane crop. The learned counsel for O.Ps. further argued that, the complainant has not produced any cogent documents to substantiate his claim. But, the complainant has relied upon the false and created documents, hence counsel has objected the proprietary of the said documents which are no way concerned to the incident. It is further argued that, the say of the complainant that he has intimated the incident to various departments including police but none have submitted reports to substantiate the factum of this alleged incident. Hence looking to any angle the case of the complainant is false, baseless and fit to be rejected. There was no negligence or carelessness on the part of the O.Ps. in any manner as alleged by the complainant, and the complainant has failed to prove the said aspect by cogent proofs. On the other hand the leaned counsel has drawn the attention of the Forum on the documents produced by him which are clearly evident that, there was no electric incident has happened as alleged by the complainant. Hence he prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
11. Considering the above said facts and the arguments advanced by both the parties and on careful perusal of the documents produce by both the parties, we have noticed the following aspect for answering the points raised above.
12. It is admitted fact that, the complainant is the owner of the above said agricultural land. In order to proved the case of the complainant, the complainant has produced in all 13 documents in support of his case. On perusal of Annexure P.1 is said to be a complaint filed before the police station on 31.01.2018 narrating the manner of incident caused in his land and by showing the loss of his sugarcane crop and also his drip pipes on account of fire accident caused on 30.01.2018 and said complaint has been received by the S.H.O of the Mehkar Police Station on 31.01.2018 at about 18.35 hrs. So, it was clearly demonstrated that complainant has made an effort to bring the incident to the notice of the police. On perusal of Annexure P.2 the S.H.O of the Police Station has intimated the same to the Tahsildar, Bhalki and requested to grant relifs if available in the Government policies. The Annexure P.3 is the statement of one Tanagi who was a coolie of the said land has given the statement before the police on 01.02.2018 narrating the entire fact of the incident as stated in the complaint. Annexure P.4 is also the statement recorded by the Police by one Naganath Dagadu who is also supports the same statement. The complainant has produced the copy of intimation letter dt.02.02.2018 given to Tahsildar, Bhalki, the Asst.Director of Agriculture, Bhalki, Asst.Executive Engineer, Gescom under Annexure P.5 to P.7. Annexure P.8 is the record of rights of the complainant R.S.No.41/3 measuring 3 acres 11 guntas. The complainant has produced another document Annexure P.9 the certificate issued by Village accountant Wanjarkheda, stating that there is a well in the land of the complainant which was having full of water for irrigation purpose. The complainant has produced 03 photographs under Annexure P.10, P.11 and P.12 to show that, the sugarcane crop was burnt in his land. Annexure P.13 is the legal notice issued to the O.P. for claiming loss caused to the complainant. On careful consideration of the above said documents, it is evident that immediately after the alleged incident he was intimated the same to the Police Station as per Annexure P.1 and thereafter the Police have recorded the statement as per Annexure P.2 and P.3. On perusal of the said statement they are said to be natural witness of the incident have given statements before the police which was evident that the incident and was occurred on 30.01.2018 in the land of the complainant, due to short-circuit found in the live electric wire which were passing through the land of the complainant and thereby standing crop of the complainant was burnt to the extent of one acre and there was a loss of drip irrigation pipes also. On perusal of the other intimation letter dated 02.02.2018 the complainant has informed the incident even to the O.P., Tahsildar and Agriculture Department Office. Therefore, on perusal of the said documents the same are supporting the case of the complainant. The photographs produced by the complainant Annexure P.10, P.11 and P.12 and also evident that same are showing burnt of sugarcane crop, with the burnt sugarcane pieces and also drip irrigation pipes are found in burnt condition in the said photos. So, these documents are clearly established and supporting the say of the complainant. Annexure P.13 is the legal notice issued to the O.P.for claiming the reliefs.
13. On the other hand the O.P. has also produced the documents i.e. the reports submitted by the personnel of their offices which are under Annexure R.1 to R.3. On perusal of the said documents the officials were visited to the land of the complainant, but reported that there was no any short-circuit found in the said land and there was no proofs in this regard on spot of the incident and as such there was no any sugarcane crop at all in the said land. Hence all the reports were contained same opinion that, there was no any electric incident and as such there was no any sugarcane crop at all. The O.Ps. have produced one photographs to show that, no sugarcane crop was found in the land of the complainant under Annexure R.4. On perusal of the said photo burnt marks were found with burnt of grass and other crop.
14. Consideration the submission of O.P. and his documents produced in this case, at one stage the O.Ps have stated in their written version and also in the evidence affidavit stating that, the complainant not at all grown the sugarcane crop in the above said land. But, on the other hand the O.P. has admitted that, some sugarcane fodder with grass of the said land was burnt on account of negligence on the part of the complainant. If the said fact is considered, as per the say of the O.P.when there was no such sugarcane crop grown in the land of the complainant, then how he was noticed the sugarcane crop fodder in the land of the complainant is not explained properly. Because, in the absence of the sugarcane crop the question of burning of the fodder only does not arise. Because, the fodder alone cannot be found in the absence of the sugarcane crop. Because, fodder is the part of sugarcane crop or which was fallen on the ground only after the maturity of the sugarcane crop and while harvesting the same. So, considering these two contradictory statement of the O.P., it is evident that, such say of the O.Ps seem to stated to rescue from the liability of this case. Because, the documents produced by him are issued by his own officials conveniently, by allegedly visiting the land more than one month after the incident So, this itself shows that, there was no occasion for the O.Ps. to find out any crop in the said land after one of the incident. Because, in the mean time there is a possibilities of taking further agricultural process for growing another crop of the next season and there is a possibilities of preparing land for next crop by cleaning the same. Therefore, the stand taken by the O.P. that, there was no sugarcane crop at all is not correct considering the documents produced by the complainant. The photocopies produced by the complainant are clearly shown the loss of sugarcane crop and also the drip pipes installed in the land of the complainant. Therefore we are of the view that, above incident has caused on account of fire, but the O.P. has denied that, there was no electricity short-circuit. Under the circumstances it is noticed by us that, why the O.P. has not produced the photocopies of the standing live wires installed in the land of the complainant land with other power supply certificate to show that there was no any excess power supplied through that wire to cause any short-circuit incident. So, in the absence of the same, we are of the view that, there is a short-circuit between the live wires of the O.P. during wind hours and thereby there is a short-circuit and sparkings of electrocution due to improper maintenance of live wires, resultantly the entire sugarcane crop was burnt including the drip irrigation pipes installed in the land of the complainant. It is further observed that, considering the submission of the complainant he has claimed only loss of one acre of crop but he fairly admitted that, the other two acre of land were already disposed off, which clearly evident that, the complainant has no malafide intention to grab the money from the O.P. out of the above said situation. Under the situation the say of the complainant that, the sugarcane crop of one acre was burnt due to accidental fire due to negligence act of the O.P. is holds good and the documents produced by him are evidencing the same. Therefore, we are of the firm opinion that, the complainant has proved the point no.1 by cogent proofs, hence the same is answered in the Affirmative.
15. Point No.2:-
In view of our answer to the point no1 in Affirmative the claim of the complainant is maintainable against the O.Ps. The complainant has claimed that, there is a loss of 3,50,000/- including the loss of crop and drip irrigation pipes and also claimed Rs.10,000/- towards the litigation charges. Considering the same the complainant has not produced any cogent proofs to substantiate his above said higher claim such as yield reports, rate of the sugarcane crop as on the date of incident and the bill for having purchased the drip pipes etc. So, even in the absence of the same in our view looking to the present facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, the complainant is entitled Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss caused to the complainant’s crop and also drip irrigation pipes, which is just and proper to meet the ends of justice as there is a huge labour and cultivation cost is involved in growing the said crop. In addition to above claim the complainant is entitled Rs.10,000/- towards pain and sufferings and Rs.3,000/- towards costs of litigation. Hence in all the complainant is entitled Rs.1,13,000/- from the O.Ps. and both O.Ps are jointly and severally liable for payment of the said amount. So, in above terms the point No.2 is answered by us partly in the Affirmative against O.P.no.1 and 2. Thus the following orders:
::ORDER::
The complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec. 12 of C.P.Act. against O.Ps. is partly allowed with costs.
Consequently the O.P No. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 1,13,000/- as stated above to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realisation of the entire amount. The O.Ps. shall comply the above said orders within one month from the date of this order.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 30th day of August 2019).
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Ashok Hanamant Malaghan
Member. President.
Documents produced by the complainant
- Annexure.P.1-Copy of complaint addressed to PSI, Mehakar Police Station.
- Annexure.P.2– Copy of letter addressed to Tahsildar by S.H.O Mehkar,Bhalki.
- Annexure.P.3 Copy of statement by Tanaji, S/o Madhav Vagmore.
- Annexure.P.4– Copy of statement by Nagnath S/o Dagawu.G.
- Annexure.P.5- Copy of letter addressed to the Tahsildar,Bhalki, by complainant.
- Annexure.P.6-Copy of letter addressed to the Asst.Director of Agriculture Bhalki by complainant
- Annexure.P.7-Copy of letter addressed to the Asst. Executive Engineer, Bhalki by complainant.
- Annexure P.8- Copy of R.O.R.
- Annexure.P.9- Copy of certificate of ownership of well.
- Annexure.P.10, 11 12 & (03) Photographs of land of complainant.
- Annexure.P.13- Copy of Legal notice addressed to Executive Engineer,Gescom,Bidar.
Document produced by the Opponents.
- Annexure R.1- Copy of statement of Sri. Anil Kulkarni, Asst.Executive Engineer,Bhalki.
- Annexure R.2- copy of statement of Sri. Shivaram, Section Officer Gescom.
- Annexure R.3- copy of statement of Sidram,Gescom.
- Annexure R.4- 01 Photograph of grass burnt in Sy.no.41/3.
Witness examined.
Complainant.
- P.W.1- Baburao, s/o Manikrao Patil (Complainant)
Opponents.
- R.W.1. Baswaraj, s/o Apparao Patil, (O.P.No.1 )
Sri. Shankrappa H. Sri. Ashok Hanamant Malaghan
Member. President.
