Karnataka

Bidar

CC/38/2016

Tukaram S/o Nagappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer GESCOM Bidar - Opp.Party(s)

Sri P.M.Deshpande

29 Jul 2017

ORDER

::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT BIDAR::

 

 

                                                                                                                 C.C.No. 38/2016

 

                                                                                                  Date of filing : 21/06/2016

 

                                                                                              Date of disposal : 29/07/2017

 

P R E S E N T:-                    (1) Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata,

                                                                                         B.A., LL.B.,

                                                                                                       President.

    

                                       (2) Shri. Shankrappa (Halipurgi),

                                                                                 B.A.LL.B.,

                                                                                           Member.

 

                                               

COMPLAINANT/S:      Sri Tukaram  S/o Nagappa,                          

                                    Age: Major,  Occ: Agriculture,

                                       R/o Aliabad, Tq: & Dist: Bidar.

                                                          

              

 

 

                                    (By Shri. P.M.Deshpand, Advocate)

 

 

                                                      VERSUS

 

OPPONENT/S   :-      1.    The Executive Engineer,

                                           GESCOM, Sub-Division,

                                         Bidar.

 

                                    2.    The Assistant Exevutive Engineer,

                                           GESCOM, Sub Division Bidar.

                                 

                                      (O.P.No.1 and 2 By Shri. R.K.Ganure, Advocate)

                                                 

 

 

                                               

::   J UD G M E N T  : :

 

 

 

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

 

1.         The complainant is before this Forum alleging deficiency of service in the part of the O.P, by filing a complaint U/s.12 of the C.P. Act., 1986, of service.

 

 

2.      The sum total of the case of the complainant is as hereunder:

            The complainant is an agriculturist and have animals.  On 15.08.2014, the complainant took animals for grazing.  On that day at about 15.30 hours, while returning home from the land of one Ashok Patil, the she buffalo came in contact with Gay wire, got, electrocuted and the she-buffalo died on the spot.  On the complaint, the New Town Police Station Bidar visited the spot, conducted panchanama and before that basing on the complaint, had registered a case in F.A.No.6/2014 and took up investigation.  Panchanama was drawn and the dead body of the she-buffalo was subjected to Post Mortem.  The Veterinary doctor Conducting the post mortem had opined the death of the she-buffalo caused due to electric shock and the dead body disposed off.  The she-buffalo of the complaint was giving milk and was a healthy animal.  The complainant was dependent upon the said she-buffalo.  Due to death of she-buffalo, the complainant lost regular income from milk vending.  The complainant got issued legal notice to O.Ps.  Though it was the mandatory obligation upon the O.Ps to ensure periodical checking and regular maintenance of the electricity supply, the O.Ps., did not care to render such services.  Due to deficiency on the part of the O.Ps., she-buffalo came in contact with live wire and died.  The complainant being consumer of the services of the O.Ps., in consuming the power, the complainant claiming the compensation as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.  Hence, the complaint for compensation, interest etc.

 

3.                Upon entering into defence on receipt of Court notice, the O.P.1 and 2 have filed common version contending that, the complainant is not a consumer of O.Ps., nor he has got electricity connection nor submitted any electricity bill paid to O.Ps., hence the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.  The O.Ps., have not provided service to complainant as per provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 2003.  In view of supreme Court Ruling 2013 AIAR (civil) 758, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant.  The complainant by colluding with the police and other officers got registered a false case against the O.Ps., and the complainant has not submitted any documents with regard to from whom the said she buffalo was purchased and not submitted animal market purchase receipt to disclose the owner of the she buffalo.  In the absence of those documents and also that the she buffalo had not died due to contact with Gay wire.  They had also denied the damages claimed to the tune of Rs.60,000/-.  There is no negligence on the part of the O.Ps.  If in case the said she buffalo died due to electrocution, then there is a circular and order passed by the KEB Board Order No.KEB/B7/ASB/*(/Vol. II dated 20.11.1991.  That order is binding to courts and officers.  Not more than the amount shown in the said chart can be aid to the concerned persons or the owner of any cattle or animals.  The complainant has to filed the report from the cattle market office/concerned authority of the cattle market from Bidar or Dubulgundi or Aurad with regard to age wise value of the she-baffalo.  No FIR or charge sheet has been registered by the police against the O.Ps., in the absence of FIR, Charge sheet etc., this complaint in not maintainable against the O.Ps.  This Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  Hence, the O.Ps., pray to dismiss the complaint.

 

 

 

 

4.             The complainant has filed documents, detailed at the end of this order, so also the complainant has filed evidence affidavit justifying his side.  On the other hand, the O.P. has filed single document claiming it to be of the year 1989.  The same being a photo copy is not being marked. So also the O.P. has filed evidence affidavit justifying his side.  Both the complainant and O.P. filed their written arguments respectively.

 

5.            Considering the contention of the complainant, the following points arise for our considerations.

 

1. Whether the complainant has proved that  there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
2. What order?

 

 

 

6.           Our answers to the points detailed are as follows:-

 

1. In the affirmative.
2.  As per final orders owing to the following:-

 

 

:: REASONS ::

 

7. Point No.1:-   Proving the factum of the death of the cattle, the complainant has altogether filed eight documents.  Ex.P.1, the complaint was filed just after the electrical accident as a consequence of which F.A.No.6/2014 was registered and in furtherance of investigation, spot Panchanama was drawn vide Ex.P.2.  This document vividly explains the ground situation and the death of the cattle.  Thereafter, the dead she buffalo was subjected to Post mortem by Asst. Director, Veterinary Hospital, Bidar, who has expressed opinion of cause of death due to electrocution and the value of the dead animal has been opined as Rs.40,000/-.  The Electrical Inspectorate causing an inspection vide Ex.P.4 have found fault with the opponents in maintaining electrical transmission line vide paragraph-4 of the report.  Vide Ex.P.5,  the jurisdictional Police have informed the fact of animal death to the Tahalsidar and Executive Magistrate, Bidar.  Ex.P.6, a photograph of the scene of occurrence vividly discloses the position of the bovine and the culprit Gay wire as alleged.  The legal notice issued by the complainant (Ex.P.7) has been never attended or responded to, by the opponents and their silence in a little manner indicates the admission of the veracity of the incident.

 

8.          All the documents discussed above and non-response of opponents to the legal notice, speak volumes regarding the truth in the allegation. 

 

9.         The opponents resorting to oft repeated standard denials have questioned about the status of the complainant as a consumer, denied about the fact of electrocution death of the animal, the facts of ownership and have submitted the photocopy of a circular of vintage origin i.e., of K.E.B. which is nonexistent now.

 

10.       To decide the question of consumer hood of the complainant, we quote here a decision of the Hon’ble National commission, reported in IV(2008) CPJ 139 (NC) CGM, P&O, NPDCL and ors V/s Koppu Duddarajan and anr, in which it has been held that,

            “Villagers pay taxes to village Panchayath and power consumption charges to electrical companies.  Hence they are consumers.”

 

11.       In addition, we may add a rider that, company(s) like opponent are creatures of the state legislation, funded by the state exchequers and established to maintain electrical power connections over the entire region, comprising a certain geographical area.  On that ground, the entire citizenry of that area would automatically be consumers of the power supply companies. 

 

12.       Further , in another decision reported in III (2010) CPJ 198(NC)-DHGVNL V/s Vidhya Devi, the Hon’ble National commission has ruled as follows:-

            “Electric companies transmitting energy duty bound to maintain and ensure safety and security of persons, animals and other objects and when exposed wires cause damages, the service provider to compensate losses”.

 

13.       We are in respectful agreement with the two decisions of the higher fora.  Both these two justify the status of the complainant as a consumer and his entitlement of seeking compensation. Therefore, we answer the point No.1 in the affirmative.

 

14. Point No.2     the complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs.60,000/- with interest @ 6% on the same and costs.  We feel, the claim is without any basis.  In two decisions, reported in 2013(1) CPR 510 (NC) and III (2013) CPJ 377 (NC),  the Hon’ble National Commission has opined that, in the case of loss of cattle, the cost estimated by the veterinarian to be awarded.  In the instant case, the Asst. Director of Veterinary, Bidar has assessed the cost of the dead she buffalo at Rs.40,000/- and the complainant deserves that much only.  Thereby we proceed to pass the following:-

 

 

 

:: ORDER ::

 

   

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opponents are here by directed jointly and severally to compensate the complainant in a sum of Rs.40,000/- together with an interest @ 6% p.a. on the said sum calculated from the date of electrocution death of the bovine i.e. 15.08.2014 till the date of realisation.
3. The opponents would further be liable to pay a litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.
4. Four weeks time granted to comply this order.

 

 (Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 29^th day of July-2017 )

 

 

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                          

 

 

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1- Certified copy of complaint date: 15.08.2014 in    

              F.A.No.6/2014.

2. Ex.P.2- C.C. of the spot Mahazar.
3. Ex.P.3- C.C. of Post mortem report.
4. Ex.P.4- Copy of Inspection report of Electrical Inspectorate.
5. Ex.P.5- C.C. of report of Nutan Hagar P.S. to the Tahasildar, Bidar.
6. Ex.P.6- Color photo of the scence of occurance.
7. Ex.P.7- Office copy of legal notice.
8. Ex.P.8- Postal receipt of legal Notice.

 

 

 

 

 

 Document produced by the Opponent.

1. Photo copy of Board order No.KEB/ASB/89-90 Vol. II

     date: 20.11.1991 of Karnataka Electricity board. (Not     

     Marked).

 

 

 

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

       Member.                                                                   President.