::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, AT BIDAR::

                                                               C.C. No.34/2018.

                                                            Date of filing: 02.07.2018.

                                                                   Date of disposal: 30.11.2018.

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:    1.   Bhagirathibai W/o Bandeppa Andure,                                                      
                                            Age:54 years,  Occ: Agriculture,

                                            R/o H.No.19-4-270, Old Naubad,

                                            Naubad Bidar.                                                                                        

                                         ( By Sri.P.M.Deshpande.,Adv.)                                           

                                                                 VERSUS

OPPONENT/S:        1)         The Executive Engineer

                                                GESCOM, Bidar.

                                       (By. Sri Santosh.V.Bargale., Adv.)

::   J UD G M E N T  ::

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

The complainant has approached this forum with a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opponent claiming compensation on account of crop loss due to snapping of electrical transmission wire.

2.           The complainant avers that, she is an agriculturist and owns and cultivates land bearing Survey No.90/1/B measuring Acre 3.20 guntas in Naubad village of Bidar (Taluka and District).  She had grown Soya, Tur and Karal (Castor) during the year 2017-18.  In the process of harvest, she had collected the grown matured crops in three heaps in her land to be later transported packing into gunny bags.  On 23.01.2018, the H.T. line passing over her land got snapped, fell down on the heaps of the crops and entire harvested materials were burnt.  She had informed about the incident to the Police Station, fire brigade, GESCOM office and revenue officials.  Only the Fire brigade arrieving at the spot tried to douse the fire but to no relief.  The entire crops were burnt.  Fire force has registered the case vide F.A. No.18/2018.  The complainant further submits that, she regularly pays tax and cess to the Panchayath towards electricity supply interalia and hence is a consumer of the opponent.  The fire caused by snapping of the electrical wire and the burning of the crop has caused her a loss of Rs.1,75,000/- and the same be awarded to her along with other reliefs.

3.          The opponent entering appearance through counsel has averred in the written version that, the complaint is false and further that, the present complainant by taking advantage of similarity of her name with that of Bhagirathi Bai D/o Bandeppa Andure, as mentioned in the R.T.C. extract has foisted this false case for undue gain.  The growing of crops in the land is also disputed by the O.P..  It is also disputed that, the harvested crops were burnt.  It is rather claimed that, only brans were left in the land and some miscreant might have put fire to the same.  It is also canvassed by the opponent at one hand that, there was no information given to GESCOM but an admission that a false legal notice was issued.

 4.        In para-7 of the versions a subtle admission regarding the arrival of Fire Brigade is forth coming, simulteously giving a little twist that, the Fire force might have doused the fire but only on brans and not crops.  The projected loss is stated to be false and further that, the present complainant
Bhagirathi Bai W/o Bandeppa is not the owner of the land but
Bhagirathi Bai D/o Bandeppa and has filed false documents.  In the calculation of the opponent, the burnt Tur crop might have only of value of Rs.2,000/- and on these points the opponents dismissal of the case, the complainant not being a consumer.

5.         Considering the pleadings of both sides, the following points arise for our consideration.

1. Does the complainant prove the ownership of the land?
2. Does the complainant prove loss of crops?
3. Is the complainant a consumer of the opponent?
4. What orders?

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

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

                                       :: REASONS ::

7.         Point.No.1: True to the assertions of the opponent, in the revenue documents at Annexures J and L, the ownership is described as Bhagirathi Bai D/o Bandeppa Andure.  Vis-a-vis to the same in Annexures-M and P, Bandeppa appears as the name of the husband of Bhagirathi Bai.  Over and above, in Annexure-K i.e., Copy of the AADHAR CARD Bandeppa is described as husband of Bhagirathi Bai.  This document bears the photo of the card holder.  AADHAR CARD, now being considered as the prime document of identification, not withstanding anything in the canvassment of the opponent we hold her claim of land holding as genuine.  There may be a haste mistake in computer entries in Annexure-J and L and ignoring the same we answer the point in affirmative.

8.         The opponent also admits the arrieval of Fire Brigade but claims that, only left out brans were burnt.  In Annexure-C, the Fire force has certified the loss of crops of in describing that, Soya, Tur and Karal heaps were burnt, which is fortified from the colour photos of the scene of occurrence submitted as Annexures D to H and Annexure-P, and the certificate of Revenue authorities.  Hence we answer this point accordingly.

9.         There is a serious challenge by the opponent that, the complainant is not a consumer.  We think it worthwhile to quote a decision of Hon’ble National Commission reported in IV(2008) CPJ 139 (NC)-CGM P and O, NPDCL and others v/s Koppu duddarajan, in which it has been held that, “Villagers pay taxes to village Panchayaths and power Consumption charges to electricity company are consumers”.  In another decision reported in III (2010) CPJ 198 NC DHBVNL v/s Vidya Devi, the National Commission holds that, “Petitioner transmits energy, has duty to ensure safety and security of persons, animals and other objects.  Loose exposed wires Causes damages.  Petitioner held liable to compensate losses”.   In yet another decision reported in 2013 CPR 184(NC)-Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitaran Nigam Ltd. and Another V/s Pramila Devi and others, the National Commission was pleased to hold that, “Electricity board is duty bound to ensure proper  and safe upkeep of electric wires”.

            The above discussion, clinches the issue of the complainants status as a Consumer and her entitlements of compensation.

10.       Ascertaining the entitlements of the complainant  towards crop loss is a very tricky issued owing to the fact that, no evidence has been led by her proving the same excepting her own claim.  The opponent calculates the value of Tur at Rs.2,000/-.  Therefore, we have to calculate plausibly without being influenced by the assertions of both sides.  The details of crop destroyed being available from the fire brigade report, we logically assess that, the quantum of loss in terms of money accrued to the complainant would be in the range of Rs.75,000/-  and hence we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER.

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opponent is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs.75,000/- together with interest @ 12% p.a. calculated from the date of fire accident till realisation to the complainant;
3. The opponent would be further liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agonies and inconveniences undergone along with Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses;
4. Four weeks time granted for compliance of this order.

 (Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 30^th day of November 2018).

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                         

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Annexure.A- Office copy of legal notice date:08.02.2018.
2. Annexure.B– Courier receipt in original.
3. Annexure.C- Certificate of Fire Brigade date:25.01.2018 in original.
4. Annexure.D to H–Colour photos of scene of occurrence.
5. Annexure.J(I-ommitted)-  Copy of RTC of Survey NO.90/1/B of              
                          village Naubad Hobli Kamthana Tq and Dist: Bidar.
6. Annexure.K- Copy of Aadhar Card of the complainant.
7. Annexure-L- Copy of Patta Book pertaining to Survey No.90/1/B of 
                           Naubad village.
8. Annexures.M- Copy of open/Borewel certificate in the above said
                               Survey No.
9. Annexure.N- Copy of sketch Map of above said Survey No.
10. Annexure-P(o-ommitted)- Copy of Crops grown certificate.

 Document produced by the Opponents.

-Nil-

Witness examined.

Complainant.

1. P.W.1- Smt. Bhagirathi Bai W/o Bandeppa Andure Complainant.

Opponent.

1. Sri. Basawaraj S/o Apparao Patil Executive Engineer GESCOM Bidar.

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

       Member.                                                                      President.