BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BAGALKOT.

C.C.No.04/2018

                     Date of filing: 06/01/2018

                                                                  Date of disposal: 29/12/2018

P R E S E N T :-

- V/S -

JUDGEMENT

By Smt. Sharada. K. President.

1.      This is a Complaint filed by the complainants under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as Act) against the Opposite Parties (in short the “OPs”) directed the OPs to pay Rs.6,00,000/- with interest there upon for the damages of the Sugarcane Crop due to heavy fire mishap in the complainant’s land till realization and pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and any other reliefs.

2.      The facts of the case in brief are that;

          The complainant is having in possession and absolute owner of the land bearing R.S.No.131/1 measuring 05 Acre 00 Guntas at Tulasigeri village in Kaladagi Hobli and the said land the OP.No.3 has provided the power connection for borewell and its R.R.No.TIP-17568 and the TC is being fixed in the said land by the Ops and further the said land has been purchased by the complainant from one Shri.Sabanna Sankannavar and the next to the said land remaining land of Sankannaar is situated. After purchase of the said land the complainant had requested to Ops to remove the TC several times, but they never heeded upon the request of the complainant and further in the said land, the complainant had grown cultivated Sugarcane Crop and the crop was fully grown up and was about to cut within a week’s time and further the above said land was high tension power line is being passed and a transformer was also situated near the lands.

          It is further contended that, on 05.01.2016 at about
3-00 P.M. from the transformer situated north side of the complainant’s land had developed a huge spark and it had turned into flames. Due to this, the fire has spreaded in the land and the entire grown sugarcane crop has been gutted in the fire, it is also note that, it had spreaded to the nearby lands and their sugarcane crop was also burnt completely. Immediately the same was informed to the Police Station Kaladagi and also informed to Village Accountant and fire station, Bagalkot respectively by the complainant and also was convened the incident to the Executive Engineer HESOM Bagalkot and Section Officer HESCOM Rural Navangar Bagalkot and Kaladagi. 

          It is further contended that, the Fire Station In-charge Officer had immediately sent one fire fighting tanker to the said land and they tried to subside the fire, but still it was uncontrollable and the entire sugarcane was burnt-off and further the Police Authorities has deputed Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and the Revenue Inspector and they have visited the spot and in their written version had submitted that, it is true that, the fire mishap occurred in the complainant’s land and the sugarcane fully grown-up crop was completely gutted in the fire and estimated the loss is about Rs.7,00,000/-. But, the said land has been provided with dripping irrigation pipeline and the borewell itself amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and the crop what it was burnt in the fire is about Rs.4,00,000/-. So, totally the complainant had lost Rs.6,00,000/- in the fire mishap.

          It is further contended that, after receiving the complaint by the Ops, the Assistant Chief Power Inspector, Belgaum had inspected the said land and submitted his findings report to the General Secretary, Karnataka Power Department, Vikas Soudha, Bengaluru and stating that, it is true that, the fire mishap has occurred on 05.01.2016 and in the said land about 3 A 20 G grown up Sugarcane Crop has been damaged in the fire. After submission of such reports to HESCOM they never bothered about releasing the compensation amount to the complainant and further the complainant had visited the Ops office several times and requested to release the compensation amount. But, the Ops turned their deaf ears towards the loss caused to the complainant.

          Finally, the complainant had issued legal notice to the Ops through his Advocate, the said notice was sent to the Ops on dtd: 01.01.2018 and after receiving the notice, the Ops have not reply to the said notice, these attitude and acts of the Ops, it clearly shows that, there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this complaint.

3.      The Complainant has also filed I.A. U/s 24 (A) of C.P. Act praying to condone the delay of 01 day in filing the Complaint, for the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit. The Complainant has filed affidavit in support of his I.A., reiterating the facts stated in the Complaint contended that, after complying all the procedures he had requested the Ops to release the Sugarcane Crop loss amount due to fire mishap, but they have not heeded upon the request and after issuing the legal notice on 01.01.2018 believing that, the Ops will release the said amount, but the Opponents failed to pay the said amount despites request and service of legal notice. Further, it is stated that, the cause of action, the limitation starts to run from the date of service of legal notice, not from the date of fire i.e. 05.01.2018, if that is so; there is no delay at all. Even otherwise, the delay of 01 day from the date of filing the complaint was unintentional and the same deserves to be condoned.

4.      After receipt of said notice to the Opponents, the OPs have appeared through their Counsel and resisted the claim of the complainant that, the averments made out in the complaint are totally false, baseless and are not true and the entire contents of the complaint are hereby denied by the Ops in toto.

          It is further contended that, the complainant is the Consumer of the Ops and Ops have allotted R.R.NO.TIP-17568 for R.S.No.131/1 and the said land has been purchased from one Shri.Sabanna Sankannavar by the complainant and further contended that, the fire incident took place on 05.01.2016 that, too in the T.C. of the above said Sankannavar land, that there was a spark in the T.C. because of which fire was caught in the dry grass of the land and the said fire extended to the lands of the complainant and accordingly he sustained a loss. That the same has been reported by the Deputy Electrical Inspector, Belagavi, and further contended that, the said Sankannavar T.C. connection has been given to other farmers. But no connection has been given to the present complainant to his Sugarcane growing land. The said fact clearly shows that, the deficiency of service has not at all arisen in the connection given to the present complainant in R.R.No.TIP-17568.

          It is further contended that, as per the statement given by the G.B.chabbi, the Section Officer, Kaladagi, it has been stated that, the Sugarcane has been grown below the T.C. by the owner Sankannavar that, the same is considered as violation of rules of the Electricity Act. Because of negligence of the land owner by name Sankannavar, the said fire incident has occurred and further in the legal notice issued by the complainant advocate it has been clearly mentioned that, the said T.C. is of no use for the complainant and further the present complainant doesn’t come under the definition of Consumer and also no deficiency of service has been occurred on the part of the Ops and further the said burnt Sugarcane has been supplied to the Sugar Factory.

          It is further contended that, the nature of the loss and damages sustained by the complainant needs to be proved under Law of Torts by filing a Civil Suit and this Forum doesn’t have jursidiction to try this complaint and further the complainant has not at all produced the burnt sugarcane supply bill provided by the factory in the name of the complainant and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opponents. Hence, the O.Ps prayed to dismiss the complaint with compensatory costs.

5.      The complainant has filed his chief affidavit along with documents which are marked as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11 in support of his case. The documents are as follows;

On the other hand OP.No.4 has filed affidavit on behalf of this case and produced 1 document which is marked as Ex.R-1 as follows;

6.      After considering the material placed on record, the following points that would arise for our consideration;

Our findings to the above points are as under;

1.  Point No.1 In the Affirmative.

2. Point No.2 Partly in the Affirmative.

3. Point No.3 As per final Order.

R E A S O N S

7.    POINT NO.1:  The complainant has tendered evidence alongwith annexed by the affidavit this particular fact was not denied by the Ops apart from this, it is settled proposition of law that, whenever the complainant waited for the releasing of the loss amount by the OPs. Of course, the Complainant has not specifically mentioned the date of approaching the OPs for demanding to pay the Sugarcane loss amounts. Nevertheless, it is not in dispute that, the Complainant has issued legal notice to the OPs on dated; 01.01.2018 calling upon them to make payment towards the loss amount. Despite, neither replied the legal notice nor paid the above said amount to the complainant. The Complaint has filed I.A. U/s 24-A (2) of C.P. Act 1986 for condonation of delay for 1 day before this Forum on 06.01.2018. In order to prove this contention, OPs have not put forth their objections in respect of I.A. filed U/s 24 (A) to main complaint. More ever the complainant has waited for releasing the Sugarcane loss amount to the OPs, it is their legal right to take the loss amount from the OPs. Under such circumstances, we would like to a refer a decision of Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahamadabad reported in III 2004 CPJ 741, wherein the Hon’ble State Commission observe that, complainant demanded his amounts from the company/OP, limitation starts from the date of demand or refusal of payment, the above said decision is aptly applicable to the instant case.

Therefore, the contention stated in the I.A. filed U/s 24 (A) is tobe considered and it deserves to be allowed. Hence, we are of the consider view that, by relying the above decision and considering the facts and circumstances, condone the delay. Therefore, the Complaint has filed on 06.01.2018 by the Complainant is within limitation. Hence, we answer the Point No.1 in the affirmative.

8.      POINT NO.2:- To substantiate the claim of the complainant, the complainant has relied the following documents. The RTC for the year 2016-17 and 2017-18 which pertains to R.S.No.131/1 measuring 5 Acre 00 Guntas of Tulasigeri Village, Bagalkot in coloum No.12 (2) name of complainant finds place in coloum No.12 (7) it is mentioned as 5 Acre 00 Guntas in coloum No.12 (8) ¨ÁUÁAiÀÄÄÛ in Coloum No.12 (9) PÀ§Äâ so this particular report has got significance for the reason that, it rebuts presumption drawn about RTC
U/s 133 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Because, the Revenue documents shows that, there was standing crop of Sugarcane Crop, the second document is copy of the HESCOM bill R.R.No.TIP-17568 and further the complainant has produced some documents to support his case i.e. Xerox copy of the legal notice, True copy of the letter issued by the Tahashildar, Bagalkot, True copy of the Kaladagi P.S. report, True copy of the letter issued by HESCOM dtd:04.07.2016, True copy of the letter issued by Chief Power Inspector, Belagavi on dtd:22.02.2016, Original copy of the report issued by the Fire office, Bagalkot and photo copies of sugarcane burnt.

          It is further contended that, on dtd: 22.02.2016, Sub Chief Electrical Inspector has submitted the report wherein Sugarcane for fire accident is mentioned that,

1. 63 PÉ.«.J. ¸ÀAPÀtÚªÀgÀ L.¦. ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀzÀ°è ¯Éʤ¤AzÀ ºÉZï.f.¥ÀÆå¸ïU EgÀĪÀ K.¹.J¸ï.Dgï. ‘ªÉÊ’¥sÉøï dA¥ï vÀÄAqÁV, ¨ÉAQAiÀÄ QrUÀUÀ¼ÀÄ Mt ºÀÄ°è£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ©zÀÄÝ, C°èAzÀ ¨ÉAQ ¥Àæ¸Àj¹ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 3 JPÀgÉ 20 UÀÄAmÉ PÀ©â£À UÀzÉÝ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ, ¸ÀzÀj «zÀÄåvï ¨ÉAQ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ,  

2. ºÀ¼ÉAiÀÄzÁzÀ ¯Éʤ£À ªÁºÀPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §zÀ°¹, ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåðzÀ ªÁºÀPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹zÀÝ°è, GzÀÝ£ÉAiÀÄ ¸Áàöå£ïUÀ¼À ªÀÄzsÀå PÀA§UÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹zÀÝgÉ, ¸Áàöå£ï PÀrªÉÄ ªÀiÁr ¸Àr®UÉÆArgÀĪÀ ªÁºÀPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©VUÉƽ¹zÀÝ°è, ¯ÉÊ£ÀÄUÀ¼À ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀiÁr, ¨ÁVgÀĪÀ PÀA§UÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉlÖUÉ ¤°è¹zÀÝ°è, ¯Éʤ£À ¸À«ÄÃ¥À EgÀĪÀ VqÀ ªÀÄgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀrzÀÄ ¯Éʤ£À ªÀÄÄPÀÛvÉ PÁ¥Ár, n¯ïÖ DVgÀĪÀ CqÀØ ¥ÀnÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E£ÀÄì¯ÉÃlgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁV ©VUÉƽ¹zÀÝ°è, ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ PÉÃAzÀæzÀ ºÉZï.n. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ J¯ï.n. dA¥ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §zÀ°¹zÀÝ°è, ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåðzÀ ¥ÀÆå¸ï vÀAwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹zÀÝ°è, ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ PÉÃAzÀæUÀ½UÉ «ÄAZÀÄ §AzsÀPÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹, ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁV ¨sÀÆ-¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ªÀåªÀ¸ÉÜ ªÀiÁrzÀÝ°è, ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀ PÉÃAzÀæzÀ £ÀÆålæ¯ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨ÁrUÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåðzÀ CxÀð °ÃqÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹zÀÝ°è, ¨sÀÆ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð PÉƼÀªÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀæwAiÉÆAzÀÄ CxÀð J¯ÉPÉÆÖçÃqÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁV ¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÝ°è ¸ÀzÀj «zÀÄåvï ¨ÉAQ C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¸ÀÄwÛgÀ°®èªÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ  

3. «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄzÁgÀjAzÀ PÉÃA¢æAiÀÄ «zÀÄåvï ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀzÀ (¸ÀÄgÀPÀëvÁ ºÁUÀÆ «zÀÄåvï ¥ÀÆgÉÊPÉUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ) ¤§AzsÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ, 2010 gÀ ¤§AzsÀ£É 12 gÀ G®èAWÀ£É DVzÉAiÉÄAzÀÄ C©ü¥Áæ¬Ä¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. 

and further other document of complaint given by the complainant to P.S.I. Kaladagi P.S. on dtd:05.01.2016 and the Panchanama drawn on 07.01.2016 and another document issued by the Tahashildar, Bagalkot on dtd: 29.01.2016 and one more document issued by Asst. Executive Engineer, HESCOM, Bagalkot to Exeutive Engineer, HESCOM, Kaladagi, Tq: Bagalkot on dtd: 14.07.2016, these are the documents are clearly shows that, the complainant had sustained heavy loss due to mishap of the fire and complainant has waited for release the loss amount to the Ops, but Ops did not reply to the said notice nor pay the Sugarcane loss amount to the complainant till today.

Now let us consider the defense version i.e. OPs have specifically pleaded that, the fire incident took place on 05.01.2016 that, too in the T.C. of the above said Sankannavar land, that there was a spark in the T.C. because of which fire was caught in the dry grass of the land and the said fire extended to the lands of the complainant and accordingly he sustained a loss. That the same has been reported by the Deputy Electrical Inspector, Belagavi, and further contended that, the said Sankannavar T.C. connection has been given to other farmers. But no connection has been given to the present complainant to his Sugarcane growing land. For that proposition, the OPs have not lead the affidavit evidence and not produced any cogent and material documents prove his case. Therefore, the OPs have failed to establish as stated in the written version. Therefore, the contention of the OPs cannot be hold good and it is not acceptable and it has no merit at all and further contended that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint that, the nature of the loss and damages sustained by the complainant needs to proved under law of tort by filing a Civil suit, that particular arguments canvassed by learned Counsel for the Ops falls to the  ground, for the reason that, the Ops have not produced any cogent, reliable and acceptable documents to prove their case and further on dtd: 16.01.2016, the Ops have produced the statement of the Section Officer, Kaladagi that, 63 KVA face wire cut out in the land of complainant, because of that, standing crop was burnt. Therefore, it cannot be said that, Ops are not negligent and further Ops have also argued that, the Sugarcane Factory will receive the burnt Sugarcane for reasonable price for that, it is for the Ops to place clear cogent and consistent evidence by placed on records of Sugar Factory that, the complainant has supplied burnt sugarcane to the factory. In this regard no evidence is placed by Ops.

          Now, coming to the loss caused to the complainant, the complainant has claimed Rs.6,00,000/- is extremely higher. Taking into consideration of the entire facts, material on records and the circumstance, we have calculated loss caused to the complainant is Rs.2,60,000/- it is just, proper and equitable  and the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and also Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the proceedings. Accordingly, we answer Point No.2 in the partly Affirmative.

 9.     POINT NO.3:- In view of our findings to Point No.1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

For the reasons discussed above, the complaint filed by the complainant U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is hereby partly allowed with costs.

           The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- to the complainant towards loss and damages to the sugarcane corp.  

          The OPs shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/-towards costs of the proceedings.

          The OPs are granted 12 weeks time for compliance of this order, failing to which the OPs are liable to pay interest
 @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till its realization.

Send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Forum on this 29^th day of December, 2018).