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

                                                               C.C. No.19/2017.

                                                            Date of filing: 10.03.2017.

                                                                   Date of disposal: 14.02.2018.

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.   Chandrashekhar S/o Hanmanthappa Gadge,

                                             Age: Major, Occ: Agriculture,

                                             R/o Village Aliamber, Tq and Dist: Bidar.

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

                                                                 VERSUS

OPPONENT/S:        1)         The Executive Engineer,

                                            GESCOM Bidar.                                                                                   

                                      (By R1.Sri. Mahesh S.Patil, Adv.)

::   J UD G M E N T  ::

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

      The Complainant has approached this forum by filing a complaint against the opposite party u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complaint averments are as follows:-

2.            That, the complainant was the owner of light Goods vehicle TATA 609, which was under third party insurance cover from M/s National insurance company ltd., valid from 15.09.2015 to 14.09.2016. (M.N.).  On 25.02.2016, while the vehicle loaded with fodder was plying from Balur to Aliamber Road, the overhead electrical lines snapped, fell down on the fodder and resultantly, the fodder and vehicle was engulfed in fire and was fully burnt.  The same is evident from the inspection report of Sri Suresh, Inspector of Motor vehicles, Bhalki (Ex.P.3) and Fire brigade report(Ex.P.5).

3.          The complaint lodged a complaint with Bhalki (R) P.S. .  The case was registered as F.A.No.04/2016 (Ex.P.1) and in course of further investigation spot Mahazar was prepared on the same day (Ex.P.2).   From the contents of the spot Mahazar it is seen that, sparks from the electrical transmission line were the cause of the fire accident.  It is further observed from the spot Mahazar that, the approximate value of the burnt vehicle was Rs.3,00,000/- and that of the loaded fodder was Rs.4,000/-.  Accordingly, the jurisdictional Police officer has later informed the Tahasildar cum Executive Magistrate, Bhalki vide Ex.P.4.

4.         The complainant avers that, his demand for compensation to the O.P. falling in deaf ears, he has approached this forum.

5.         The O.P. on receipt of court notice has put up appearance and has filed versions, the merit of the case is denied, so also the nativity of the complainant and his profession.  The ownership of the vehicle while is died in Para No.3 of the version, in Para No.4 it is stated that, the vehicle was over loaded, the villagers advised the driver not to pass under the electrical lines, which was not heeded and hence the fire accident took place.  It is further claimed by the O.P. that, GESCOM is not liable to compensate the complainant in any manner.

6.         The complainant has submitted documents in furtherance of his case as detailed at the and of this order and both sides have led their respective evidences.

7.         Taking into consideration the rival contentions the following points arise for our consideration.

1. Does the complainant prove that, the fire accident happened due to negligence of the O.P?
2. Does the O.P. prove that, there was no negligence in the part of GESCOM?
3. What order?

 8.        Our answers to the points stated above are as follows:-

            Point No.1.       In the affirmative.

            Point No.2.       In the Negative.

            Point No.3.        As per final orders, owing to the following.

:: REASONS ::

9.         Answer to points No.1 and 2 are to be dealt simultaneously being closely linked.

10.       Documents submitted by the complainant as Ex.P.1 to P5 are open documents prepared by the public authorities from which it is evident that, sparks emanating from the live electrical wires caused the fire accident.  Had there been proper maintenance of the electrical transmission lines, such  an unfortunate episode would not have occurred at all.  Inspite of the tall claims of the O.P. that, the vehicle was overloaded, villagers were restraining the driver to pass under the transmission line etc. , no evidence is led to that effect.  In case laws, reported in 2009 CTJ 643 (CP) NCRDC, III(2010) CPJ 198 (NC)-
(DHCVNL)V/s Vidya Devi) and also 2016 (1) CPR—260(NC) the Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to hold that.

            “Electric Co.s 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”.

11.       The aforesaid mandates clinch the points of dispute in entirety and we answer the points No.1 and 2 accordingly.

12.       Brooding over to ascertain the net entitlements of the complainant, even though he has claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the cost of the vehicle, we see from Ex.P.6 that, the  quotation for repair was at Rs.2,67,650/-.  We round it up at RS.2,70,000/- since the complainant would have sustained expenses to bring the burnt vehicle from Bhalki to Bidar.  He would be entitled to that much as repair cost of the vehicle.  However we concur with the assessment of the cost of the fodder at Rs.4,000/- which appears to be reasonable.  Resultantly, we pass the following:-                                                                      

                                                    ::ORDER:: 

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The O.P. is hereby directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,74,000/- (rupees two lakh seventy-four thousand)to the complainant towards the repair cost of the vehicle and that of the fodder, together with an interest @ 12% p.a. calculated from the date of filing the complaint till realisation;
3. A further sum of Rs. 10,000/-(ten thousand) would be payable as compensation due to denial of the just claim, protraction of the proceedings unreasonably and mental agony undergone by the complainant;
4. A further sum of Rs.3,000/- (three thousand) would be payable by the O.P. towards litigation expenses.
5. Four weeks time is granted to comply this order.   

(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 14^th  day of February 2018).

   Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                       

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P.1-  Copy of complaint to Bhalki(R) P.S.
2. Ex.P.2– Spot Mahazar (copy).
3. Ex.P.3– I.M.V. report(copy).
4. Ex.P.4—Copy of jurisdictional Police to Tahasildar cum Executive    
                  Magistrate, Bhalki.
5. Ex.P.5 – Original fire brigade report.
6. Ex.P.6- Quotation of vehicle repair.
7. Ex.P.7- Copy of R.C. book.
8. Ex.P.8- Copy of Goods carriage permit.
9. Ex.P.9- Office copy of legal notice.
10. Ex.P.10- Courier receipt.
11. Ex.P.11- Copy of Insurance certificate.        

 Document produced by the Opponents. (O.P.NO.1 only).

         -NIL-

          NIl

Witness examined.

Complainant.

1. P.W.1- Chandrasekhar S/o Hanamanthappa Gadge (Complainant).

Opponent No.1

1. R.W.1- Sri Basawraj S/o Apparao Patil, E.E.GESCOM, Bidar.
2.  

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

       Member.                                                                      President.