::BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM,

AT KALABURAGI::

                                                                                                                                                      C.C. No. 35/2015

                                                                                                                                        Date of filing: 21/05/2015

                                                                                                                                     Date of disposal: 07/06/2017

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

                                                                                          President (Addl. Charge).

                                                  (2) Shri. Nagashetty Gandage,     M.Com.LL.B.,(Spl)

                                                                                                           Member.                              

COMPLAINANT/S:    Venkat Subbarao S/o Veerayya,

                                      Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture,

                                      R/o. Mavoor Village, Tq: Jewargi,

                                      Dist: Kalaburagi. 

                                      (By Sri Bhimashankar G.M., Adv.)

                                               VERSUS

OPPONENT/S   :-          1.  The Executive Engineer (O & M) Div. No.2,

                                               GESCOM, Old Jewargi Road,

                                               Kalaburagi.

                                        2.   The Asst. Executive Engineer (O & M)                                                      

                                               GESCOM, Jewargi,

                                               Dist: Kalaburagi.

                                           (OP-1 & 2 by Sri P.N. Reddy Adv.)

                                                ::   J UD G M E N T  : :

By Shri. Jagannath Prasad Udgata, President.

              The complainant before this Forum alleging deficiency of service in the part of the O.Ps, by filing a complaint U/s.12 of the C.P. Act., 1986 and claiming total compensation of Rs.19,10,000/-  from the O.P.s,  towards loss of sugar cane crops.

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

      The complainant is the owner and possessor of the land Sy.No. 6, measuring 25 acres situated at Mavoor village of Jewargi Taluka and the complainant had planted sugarcane crop in the said land.      On 02/12/2014 at about 12.00 noon, the main electrical wire passing through the said land of the complainant came down got attached to sugarcane crop (grown to cutting stage) and touched each other and as a result of which there were electrical spark, due to which the standing entire sugarcane crops in 25 acres of land caught fire and was burnt completely.    At that time the servant of the complainant by name Saidulu S/o Lateef and other others were cutting the sugarcane crop.  Thereafter the servant of the complainant informed the same to the complainant and the complainant immediately went to the spot and tried to save the crop and also informed to the Fire Brigade.   They also tried to extinguish the same, but due to heavy spreading of fire, he could not save the crop and on the same day the V.A.  & R.I. came to the spot, on 02/12/2014 and conducted panchanama. The complainant gave complaint to the Nelogi Police on 03/12/2014, who registered the case in F.A.No.20/2014 and conducted the spot inspection and panchanama.   Due to negligence of the O.P.s in not maintaining the wires properly the complainant sustained huge loss of Rs.18,00,000/- and the complainant requested the O.P.s  for grant of compensation.   The O.P.s failed to pay the compensation, this act of the O.P.s amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s.  Hence the complainant prayed for allowing the complaint and awarding the compensation as prayed above.

3.       The Opponents-1 & 2, entering into defence on receipt of Court notice, have filed elaborate common version and denied all the allegations of the complainant in as a whole.  The O.P.1 & 2 have submitted that the complainant with an intention to get compensation had created and concocted all the alleged panchanama and reports from the government officials to cause loss to the opponents.  The complainant is not the consumer of the O.Ps.  The complainant did not sustain any loss, hence question of payment of compensation does not arise.  It is submitted that if any electrical wire have come in contact with each other, immediately the power supply would be tripped, but on the alleged date of incident i.e., 02/12/2014 at about 12.00 noon there was no such trip occurred in the power supply junction and the power supply was stood alright.   On these grounds, the O.P.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

4.          Both sides have filed documents, detailed at the end of this order, so also evidence affidavits and written arguments justifying their respective stands.  The complainant’s side has altogether led evidence of five persons.   Out of them the complainant had got himself examined as P.W.1 and the oral evidence of four eye witnesses were led. The parties have been heard in length.

5.         Considering the rival contentions of the parties, the following points arise for our consideration:-

1. Whether the Complainant prove that, there is deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.s due to which the sugarcane crop of the complainant was burnt?
2. What order?

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

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

:: REASONS ::

  7.Point No.1 :-   In the instant case, the complainant has got examined five eye witnesses testifying about the fire accident due to electricity on 2-12-2014 at about 12.00 noon in the land bearing Sy.No:6 of Mavoor Village of Jewargi Taluk, Kalaburgi District. In addition, the complainant has also filed documents vide Ex.P1 to P10 substantiating the fact of fire accident. The objections of the O.Ps are nothing but rhetoric, full of approbation and reprobation. At one voice the O.Ps denied the entire fire accident, but again by Ex.R2 and R3 they want to convince the fact that only a part of sugarcane grown by the complainant was destroyed. While observing the contents of Ex.P26 (A report of the Electrical Inspectorate), we find that on 2-12-2014 the Assistant Executive Engineer of the O.P had himself intimated the inspectorate about the fire accident, basing on which an inspection was made on 6-12-2014, touching the aspect of fire accident.   The relevant portion of the Electrical Inspector’s report is herewith reproduced.

“v. C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼À G®èAWÀ£É:

ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹zÀ J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÀÆ®APÀĵÀªÁV ¥Àj²Ã°¹zÁUÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÉAQ C¥ÀWÁvÀ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀܼÀzÀ ¥Àj«ÃPÀëuÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è PÀAqÀħAzÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¹zÁUÀ, ²æà ªÉAPÀl¸ÀħâgÁªÀ vÀAzÉ «ÃgÀAiÀiÁå G¥ÀàlÆj, EªÀgÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA.6gÀ d«Ää£À°è  EgÀĪÀ 63PÉ«J «zÀÄåvï ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀzÀ J¯ïn ¥ÉÆæmÉPÀë£ï Qmï£À°è ±Ámïð ¸ÀQÃðmï DV ¨ÉAQ QrUÀ¼ÀÄ «zÀÄåvï ¥ÀjªÀvÀðPÀzÀ PɼÀUÉ ¨É¼É¢zÀÝ MtVzÀ  ºÀÄ°è£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ©zÀÄÝ ¨ÉAQAiÀÄÄAmÁV D ¨ÉAQAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°è ¨É¼É¢zÀÝ PÀ©â£À ¨É¼ÉUÉ ¥À¸Àj¹ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 25 JPÀgÉAiÀĵÀÄÖ d«Ää£À°è ¨É¼É¢zÀÄÝ PÀ©â£À ¨É¼É ¸ÀÄnÖgÀĪÀÅzÁV C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄ ¥ÀqÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

¸ÀzÀj J¯ï.n. «zÀÄåvï vÀAwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©VAiÀiÁV J¼É¢zÀÝgÉ ºÁUÀÆ J¯ï.n. «zÀÄåvï vÀAwUÀ¼ÀÄ MAzÀPÉÆÌAzÀÄ ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðPÉÌ §AzÀ vÀPÀët J¯ï.n. r¹Öç§Æå±À£ï Qmï£À°è ¥sÀÆå¸ï zsÁgÀPÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀÄnÖzÀÝgÉ ¸ÀzÀj ¨ÉAQ C¥ÀWÁvÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀ¦à¸À§ºÀÄzÁVvÀÄÛ JA§ C©ü¥ÁæAiÀÄPÉÌ §gÀ¯ÁVzÉ.

 ¸ÀzÀj ¨ÉAQ C¥ÀWÁvÀzÀ°è ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄzÁgÀjAzÀ(eɸÁÌA) ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ «zÀÄåZÀÑQÛ ¤AiÀĪÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 1956gÀ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ 29 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 50 EªÀÅUÀ¼À G®èAWÀ£ÉAiÀiÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.”

8.       Additionally, we have also traversed into the report of the fire brigade vide Ex.P7, in which the fact of the dousing the fire on the entire 25 acres of Sy.No:6 of Mavoor Village is evident. Inspite of the vague defence of the O.Ps a thorough perusal of the documents and statement of witnesses clinchingly prove that, there was factually fire accident in the land of the complainant, resulting into massive crop loss. Also Ex.P.16 issued by the O.P’s, officials proves his status as a Consumer.  Hence, we answer the Point No:1 in the Affirmative.

9. Point No:2:- Thriving to ascertain the quantum of loss attributed to the complainant, we have before us a series of documents originated from different Government Officials, assessing divergent figures of loss. For example, vide Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 the Police and Revenue Authorities, respectively assessed the loss at Rs.25,00,000/-. In the spot mahazar Ex.P4 and Revenue Inspector’s Report vide Ex.P5 assesses the loss at Rs.16,00,000/-. The Agriculture Officer vide Ex.P6 has assessed the loss at Rs.20,00,000/-. The confusing figures stated above compels us to adopt a practical, impartial and reasonable method of assessment of our own. Out of all the documents, we find the Ex.P7 (fire brigade report) to be more trustworthy, since the personnel were on the spot rather than all other officials and they had the scope to see the field and the ravaging fire and also the quantum of crop loss. In the said report, the fire brigade authorities in Column No:11 have certified that, there was 80% crop loss over a 25 acres patch of land.    But again, the photos submitted by the complainant vide Ex.P.17 to P.24, belie the assessment of the Fire Brigade and we quantify the crop loss at 40%.       

10.     We have before us Ex.P27-report of the Agriculture Official of “Raith Sampark Kendra, Nelogi”, certifying about the burning of the crop and also further certifying that the approximate yield per acre would be 55-60 tons. From Ex.R3 we observe that the complainant willingly has sold his crop to the Renuka Sugar Factory @ Rs.1721/- per M.T. We are of the opinion that, this price quoted above should form the basis of assessment.   Assuming that as per Ex.P27 the total yield should have been 25X60 i.e 1500 MT, out of which 80% crop were claimed to be burnt. The documents submitted vide Ex.R2 & R3 which were never challenged by the complainant side rather prove the quantification made by us   appropriate on the aspect of crop loss due to fire. The same is more fortified from the photographs produced by the complainant vide Ex.P17 to 24. Hence, we reasonably calculate that the complainant has sustained 40% crop loss i.e about 600 M.T, the price of which would work out to a sum of Rs.10,32,600/-, notwithstanding the claim of the complainant in his complaint claiming a loss of Rs.18,00,000/- and other sundry prayers.  Therefore we hold that the complainant should be compensated as per the calculation stated supra and we proceed to pass the following:                                        

:: ORDER ::

          The complaint is allowed in part.

a)     The O.Ps jointly and severally are directed to compensate the complainants in a sum of Rs.10,32,600/- towards the crop loss.

b) The O.Ps jointly and severally are further directed to reimburse a sum of RS.20,000/- towards mental agony and other miseries undergone by the complainant together with a litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-.

 c) Four weeks’ time is granted to comply this order.

d) Office to provide free copies to the litigants.

e) A certified copy of this order be transmitted to the Asst. Director, Information and Publicity, Govt. of Karnataka, with the direction to take steps for wide publication in print and electronic media for consumer awareness.

(Typed to our dictation then corrected, signed by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 7^th day June-2017)

   Sri. Nagashetty G.                                                                               Sri. Jagannath Prasad                                 

          Member.                                                                                                 President. 

  List of witnesses produced by the complainant

1. PW-1 complainant by name Venkat Subbarao.
2. PW-2 Saidulu eyewitness to the fire incident.
3. PW-3 Mallayya Hiremath Pancha Witness.
4. PW-4 Annaraya Gouda. 
5. PW-5- Siddalingayya

Documents produced by the complainant

1. Ex.P1-Copy of report of Tahasildar sent to O.P.2, dtd:18-12-2014.
2. Ex.P.2-Copy of report of Police submitted to Tahasildar, dtd:03-12-2014.
3. Ex.P3- Copy of spot Panchanama by police, dtd:03-12-2014.
4. Ex.P4- Copy of Panchanama conducted by V.A & R.I., dtd:02-12-2014.
5. Ex.P4- Copy of Panchanama conducted by Agri. Officer, dtd:08-12-2014.
6. Ex.P5- Report of R.I. to Tahasildar, dtd:04-12-2014..
7. Ex.P.-Report of Raith Sampark Kendra Nelogi to Agriculture officer, Jewargi, dtd:08-12-2014. 
8. Ex.P.7- Fire Brigade Report, dtd:27-04-2015. 
9. Ex.P.8- Copy of complaint given before the police, dtd:03-12-2014. 
10. Ex.P.9- Copy statement of Sydulu before the police, dtd:03-12-2014.
11. Ex.P.10- Copy statement of complainant.
12. Ex.P.11- Copy of legal notice, dtd:05-05-2015.
13. Ex.P.12- Copy of application given to the O.Ps.  dtd:02-12-2014.
14. Ex.P.13- Copy of application given to the Deputy Commissioner, dtd:03-12-14.
15. Ex.P.14- Copy of complaint given to the A.D.O., Jewargi, dtd:03-12-2014.
16. Ex.P.15-Copy of complaint given to Tahasildar, Jewargi, dtd:02-12-2014.
17. Ex.P.16-Certificate issued by the O.Ps., regarding the electricity connection given to complainant’s pump set.
18. Ex.P.17 to P.24-photos of burnt sugar cane crop.
19. Ex.P.25-RTC of lands.
20. Ex.P.26-Copy of report of Electrical Inspector, dtd:05-02-2015.
21. Ex.P.27- Yield certificate issued by the Raith Sampark Kendra, Nelogi,                       dtd:12-5-2017.

 List of witnesses & Documents produced by the Opponent/s:

      RW-1- Prabhu Gurulingappa., AEE. GESCOM, Jewargi.  

1. Ex.R1-C.C.of Logbook maintained in Station.
2. Ex.R.2-Copy of weight of cultivator for supply of sugarcane by complainant to Manali Sugar Factory from 01-10-2014 to 08-12-2014.
3. E x.R3-Copy of report of Renuka Sugar Factory, regarding supply of sugarcane by the complainant for the year 2014-15.

Sri. Nagashetty G..,                                               Sri. Jagannath Prasad,                                  

       Member.                                                                      President.         

SAB