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

                                                               C.C. No.87/2017.

                                                            Date of filing: 12.12.2017.

                                                                   Date of disposal: 07.07.2018.

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.   Shivakumar S/o Baburao Madakatti,

                                            Age:Major, Occ: Agriculture,

                                              R/o village Anadoor Wadi, Tq and Dist: Bidar.

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

                                                                 VERSUS

OPPONENT/S:        1)         The Executive Engineer,

                                             GESCOM Bidar.

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

::   J UD G M E N T  ::

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

The present complainant has filed the instant case u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 alleging deficiency of service in the part of the O.P. seeking compensation therefore.  The averments of the complaint are as follows:-

2.           That, the complainant is native of Anadoor Wadi (Khader Nagar) village Bidar (Tq & Dist) and he owns land measuring Ac. 4.19 guntas in the same village vide Sy.No.305.  He had got installed I.P. set, drip irrigation system fitted with pipes for irrigating the field.  He also is a Raita member of NSSK sugar Factory Ltd., supplies sugar cane to said factory, who has fixed the sale supply @ Rs.2500/- P.M.T. He claims the yield per acre @ 50 M.T. and total yield (expected) at 203.75 tonnes.  On 03.11.2017, the live wire of H.T. electrical line running over his field got snapped caused electrical sparks and resultantly the standing sugar cane crops, I.P. Set pipes and drip irrigation equipments were fully burnt down.

            The loss assessed by the complainant is as follows:-

3.          The complainant further asserts that, he had informed the jurisdictional Janawada Police Station about the fire accident, so also the fire brigade.  Spot panchanama was drawn by the police.  He had lodged a claim for compensation with the O.P. in vain.  He claims further that, because of non maintenance of live electrical wires the fire accident was caused to his field culminating in loss and he being tax payer to the state is entitled for compensation as a consumer from the opposite party.

 4.        The sole O.P. upon notice has appeared through counsel participated in the case and has filed written versions, where in the O.P. canvasses that, the case is not maintainable in law or on facts.  Neither the complainant is a consumer nor is the O.P. a service provider.  The complainant is not at all an agriculturist, does not possess land, there is no I.P. set or drip irrigation system installed in his property and further that, he is not a Raita member of M/s NSSK factory for supplying sugar Cane to the said factory.  (Sic- the O.P. but has produced a detail a/c of Sugar Cane Supply to the factory, even though the Sy. Number of land is not mentioned).  It is further canvassed that, there is no evidence led by the complainant to the extent of total yield of 203.75 M.T of cane.

5.         The fact of running the H.T. electrical line over the land of the complainant is admitted but the fall of snapped electrical line and sparks causing the fire accident is denied.  It is further claimed that, the complainant has supplied canes to the sugar factory to the tune of 112.285 tons and on enquiry the O.P. has ascertained that, there was standing sugar cane Crop in Sy.No.305 of Anadoor Wadi village in a portion of 1 Acre only and the same has been damaged due to electrical fire, but the same accident was due to the negligent act of the complainant.

6.         It is then pleaded by the O.P. that, as per the rules the running H.T.  line through Sy.No.305 was six feet above the Sugar Cane Crop and the total height of the line was 18 feet from the ground and possibility of short circuit from the tightly fixed line was remote,  The complainant had issued legal notice which was suitably replied.  After the receipt of fire accident report, officials of the O.P. had visited the spot and found only one acre sugar Cane was burnt and hence the O.P. is liable not to pay any compensation.  It is further claimed that, the clever complainant has got the case registered to make undue gain.  It is further avered that, there is no deficiency of service and the O.P. has prayed dismissal of the complaint with costs.

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

1. Is the complainant competent to maintain this complaint?
2. Does the O.P. prove that, there was no electrical fire and no deficiency of service?
3. What would be the extent of reasonable damages sustained by the complainant to be compensated by the O.P.?
4. What orders?

8.         Our answers to the arisen points are as following:-

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

:: REASONS ::

9.         Point (1): Notwithstanding the assertions of the O.P. to the effect that, the complainant is not a Consumer under GESCOM and further that, he has no land holding, we see from the documents produced, especially Annexure-D (copy of R.T.C. of his land) which proves that,, he owns Ac.4.03 guntas of land in Khadernagar (Annadoor Wadi) of Kamthana (Hobli) of Bidar (Tq/Dist).He has also produced a service certificate from the O.P.s office vide Annexure-M that, he and obtained electrical connection for 5 H.P.P. installation bearing R.R.No.AWIP-22 out right from 17.05.1982.  The complainant has moreover produced Annexure-N, a quotation for M/s Sri Siddivinayak Irrigation system (undated) specifying the total cost of irrigation system installation at
Rs.1,88,187.90 ps.. The complainant in course of argument has canvassed before us that, the system was incorporated before four years of the fire accident.  The O.P. himself though in one voice is denying that, the complainant has no land or electrical connection, in another voice is claiming that, the later had grown sugar cane only in 1 Acre of land.  The O.P. has further produced a copy of the sugar cane supply certificate from Naranja Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. Bidar vide Annexure-R3 to drive in the point that, there has been no crop loss and the complainant has supplied 112.285 M.T. of cane to the sugar factory (No. number of the land is forthcoming.)  We are afraid, this sort of approbation and reprobation by a Government Organisation can be ignored in course of a trial.  Thereby we are of the opinion that, the maxim “Fallus in Uno, falsus in omnibus”.  Squarely applies to the conducts of the O.P..  Therefore we answer this point in affirmative as the relationship of consumer and service provider is proven beyond doubt.

10.       Point (2):       In spite of vehement denial of the O.P. that, there was no fire accident in the land of the complainant, its’ own admission about raising sugar cane in only one acre of land which was burnt and production of certificate of sugar cane supply to M/s Naranja Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., Bidar is an antithesis of its claim.  A futile attempt further has been made by the O.P. at later stage by producing two statements of its’ two employees vide Annexures R4 and R5 to substantiate non happening of the fire accident due to electrical fire.  We are afraid this sort of evidences are not belief inspiring.  Per contra, the police panchanama prepared at the earliest (Annexure-A), fire brigade report (Annexure-B), colour photographs Annexures E to H produced by the complainant clinchingly prove that, indeed there was fire accident (electrical) in the land of the complainant, affecting sugar cane grown over Ac.4.03 guntas and also the irrigation systems installed therein on 3.11.2017.  Thereby we answer the point in the negative.           

11.       Point (3): In the present context, the pleadings of the parties are big paradoxes.  Both sides have failed to prove their points to the hilt.  While the complainant claims to have lost sugar cane crop and irrigation installation completely, there is evidence produced by the O.P. vide Annexure-R3 that, the former has supplied 112.285 M.T. of cane to M/s Naranja Sugar Factory.  Though the Sy. No. of the cultivated is not forthcoming from this documents, no where the complainant has pleaded to have grown sugar cane in any of his other lands.  So, Annexure-R3 has to be accepted on its face value and the same has to be deducted from the total assessed produce.

12.       The complainant has produced yield certificate from the Deptt. Of Statistics vide Annexure-P from which it is evidence that average yield of cane from one acre of land is 29 M.T. (app) out of which 112.205 M.T. would be set off, which leaves a residue of 5.89 M.T. rounded off t 6 M.T. as the cane loss.  At the rate of Rs.2500/- P.M.T., the value works to be Rs.15000/- to be compensated.

13.       Next, the cost of irrigation system installed 4 years before the fire accident is shown as RS.1,88,187.90 ps. and they are burnt.  Depreciations @ 10 % p.a. has to be given as per the normal procedures.  Hence the residual amount of loss would be Rs.1,12,292/- (app) entitled by the complainant together with other conventional sums.  Thereby, as per the discussions supra, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER.

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The O.P. is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,27,292/- to the complainant towards losses of crop and irrigation equipments together with 12% p.a. interest calculated from the date of fire accident till realisation;
3. The O.P. is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- a compensation towards mental agonies and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses,
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 7^th day of July 2018).

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

Member.                                                                President.                                                                                       

Documents produced by the complainant.

1. Annexure.A-Copy of spot Panchanama date: 05.11.2017 of Janawada
                          Police Station,  Bidar.
2. Annexure.B–Certificate of Fire brigade date 07.11.2017.
3. Annexure. C– Acknowledged copy of the complaint date:04.11.2017.
4. Annexure.D—Copy of R.T.C. of Sy.No.305  of village Khadar nagar
                             (Annadoor Wadi).
5. Annexure. E to H– Colour photo graphs.
6. Annexure.J-   Office copy of legal notice..
7. Annexure.K- Courier receipt.
8. Annexure.L- Copy of complainant Aadhar card.
9. Annexure.M-Original service certificate of GESCOM
                            date:02.06.2018.
10. Annexure.N- Original quotation of Sri Sidhivinayak irrigation
                              systems date Nil.
11. Annexure.P- Copy of yield certificate issued by directorate of
                             Economics and statistic Govt. Of Karnataka.

 Document produced by the Opponents.

1. Annexure.R.1 & R.2- Colour Photo graphs.
2. Annexure.R.3- Copy of Farmer Tonnage Report of the Naranja
                               Sahakari Sakkare Karkhane Lmt.
3. Annexure.R.4- Statement of one Shri Vijayakumar, Section officer
                              O & M GESCOM Annadoor.
4. Annexure.R.5- Statement of Sri. Ravikumar Karbari A.E.E. O & N
                              GESCOM Kamthana.

Witness examined.

Complainant.

1. P.W.1- Sri. Shivkumar S/o Baburao Madkatti (Complainant).

Opponent No.1

1. R.W.1- Sri. Basawaraj S/o Apparao Patil GESCOM Bidar.

Sri. Shankrappa H.                                             Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                  

       Member.                                                                      President.