This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant against Managing Director, GESCOM Gulbarga and Assistant Ex. Engineer Electrical, GESCOM Sindhanur, herein after referred as Respondents. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-<br /> <br /> The complainant has taken electricity connection to his house at Jalihal, Tq. Sindhanur bearing RR.No. TMCL 99-13-1269 since many years. The said house is hut made up of thach roof. Like complainant, many other persons of that area had taken electric connection from the Respondents. Near the vicinity of complainant and others there is “11 line K.V”. and “LT line” of electricity. Due to carelessness and negligence of the Respondents in maintaining “11 K.V. Line” and LT Line and because of not maintaining proper distance between these two lines they came in contact with each other and resulted in short circuit causing electricity spark which in-turn burnt many huts on 17-04-04 at about 9-00 PM. Due to this fire, the hut of the complainant was burnt and one she-buffalo, one cow, one haystake were also burnt into ashes causing total loss of Rs. 1,10,000/-<br /> <br /> After some time thereafter Fire Engine from Sindhanur came and extinguished the fire. A complaint was lodged by the complainant before PSI Turvihal PSI which was registered as C No. TUL/FA/04 dt. 18-04-04. A detailed panchanama was conducted by the PSI and statements of witnesses were also recorded. From the day of incident i.e, 17-04-04 electricity supply of the hut of the complainant was cut. After repairing the burnt/hut complainant requested the Respondent No-2 to restore the electric supply to his house/hut besides personal approach to the office of Respondent NO-2. But there is no supply of electricity to his hut. Without supply of electricity Respondents are raising bills to his RR.No. regularly. The non-supply of electricity caused inconvenience and problems to the complainant and this amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents. It is the responsibility of the Respondents to maintain live-wire and due to improper supply of electricity, electric short circuit was caused in the supply of current to the hut of the complainant causing loss. The complainant sent a legal notice dt. 01-09-04 to the Respondents claiming compensation but Respondent No-1 replied that they are not responsible. Hence for all these reasons the complainant has sought for payment of Rs. 1,10,000/- towards loss of his hut, animals and other immovable properties and Rs. 20,000/- towards damages for not restoring electricity supply to his house and for restoration of electricity supply to his house/hut and for payment of costs.<br /> <br /> 2. Respondent No-1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and Respondent No-2 has filed written statement which has been adopted by Respondent NO-1. In the written statement the Respondents have contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. It is denied that due to carelessness and negligence of Respondents in maintaining 11 K.V. line & LT line and because of not-maintaining proper distance between these two lines with each other resulted in short-circuit causing electricity spark. The two lines are maintained properly as per Indian Electricity Rules & clearance between LT and 11 K.V. line is maintained. The incident might have occurred due to internal short circuit inside the hut. It is denied that due to fire the complainant’s hut, one she buffalo, cow, haystack were burnt and he sustained loss of Rs. 1,10,000/-. It is further denied that after repairing the burnt house the complainant requested to restore the electricity supply to his house. In-fact the complainant never approached the Respondent’s office for restoration of electricity supply and the complainant has not submitted any Wiring completion diagram and test report etc., of newly constructed house as required electricity rules and the complainant has not paid electricity bills consumed by him from July 2000 upto the date of incident and till today. Hence the question of restoring the electricity and payment of damages of Rs. 20,000/- does not arise.<br /> <br /> In-fact the hut might have been burnt due to their own negligence and due to internal defective wiring. The complainant has filed this false complaint against the Respondents and created the documents in-collusion with the police in-order to claim the compensation from the Respondents. There is no deficiency in service on the part of these Respondents. Hence the question of paying the compensation and restoration of electricity does not arise. The claim of the complainant is highly excessive without any base. Hence for all these reasons the Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.<br /> <br /> 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn affidavit as his chief-examination and has got marked [10] documents at Ex.P-1 to P-10. In rebuttal the Respondents have filed sworn affidavit of Respondent NO-2 as rebuttal evidence and has got marked one document at Ex.R-1.<br /> <br /> 4. Heard the arguments of both sides besides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration:-<br /> <br /> 1.Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondent for the electricity short-circuit as alleged?<br /> <br /> 2.Whether the complainant is entitled to the compensation sought for?<br /> <br /> 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:-<br /> <br /> 1.In the affirmative. <br /> <br /> 2. As per final order for the following<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> POINT NO.1:-<br /> <br /> 6. It is the case of the complainant that he is the consumer of electricity under the Respondents having taken electricity connection to his house at Jalihal bearing RR.No. TMCL 99-13-1269 since many years. Near the of vicinity hut of complainant and others, there is 11 K.V. Line and LT Line of electricity. On 11-04-04 at about 9-00 PM, due to carelessness and negligence of Respondent in maintaining proper distance between 11 K.V. Line and LT Lines they came in-contact with each other resulting in short circuit causing electricity spark which burnt many huts including hut of the complainant and his one she buffalo, one cow & one haystack were also burnt into ashes causing total loss of Rs. 1,10,000/-. After some time a Fire Engine from Sindhanur came and extinguished the fire. A complainant was lodged by the complainant before Turvihal PS which was registered as C No. TUL/FA104 dt. 18-04-04 and police conducted panchanama and recorded the statement of witnesses. The Respondents have denied the short circuit of electricity and contended that the lines are maintained properly and clearance between LT and 11 KV lines is maintained as per Indian Electricity Rules. The incident might have occurred due to internal short circuit inside the hut. The complainant has filed a false complaint against the Respondents and created false documents in-collusion with the police in order to claim compensation.<br /> <br /> 7. The complainant has reiterated the contents of his complaint in his affidavit-evidence and has relied on (10) documents at Ex.P-1 to P-10 to substantiate his claim. Ex.P-1 is the copy of complaint of the complainant given to the PSI Turvihal PS. Ex.P-2 is the copy of panchanama drawn by the Village Accountant & Revenue Inspector, Jalihal along with list of names of affected persons including the name of the complainant at Sl.No-1. Ex.P-3 is the copy of PME Report of cow, Ex.P-4 is the copy of Statement of Dodda Basappa recorded by police. Ex.P-5 is the Copy of Special Report of PSI Turvihal along with panchanamas regarding burnt of huts of etc., Ex.P-6 (1 to 10) are the ten photos with its negatives showing the photographs of incident. Ex.P-7 is the Electricity Bill of the complainant installation. Ex.P-8 is the Office Copy of legal notice with postal acknowledgement. Ex.P-9 is the Reply of Respondent No-2 and Ex.P-10 is Vijaya Karnataka News Paper flashing the news of electricity short circuit.<br /> <br /> 8. The Respondent No-2 in his affidavit-evidence has reiterated the contents of written version denying the entire case of complainant and has relied on copy of Ledger Extract of complainant’s installation filed at Ex.R-1. From the Ledger Extract at Ex.R-1 one thing is clear that the complainant is a consumer under the Respondents having taken electricity connection to his installations. <br /> <br /> 9. From a perusal of Ex.P-1 the copy of police complaint, Ex.P-2 copy of panchanama drawn by V.A. & R.I. Jalihal with list of names of affected persons, and Ex.P-5 the copy of Special Report of PSI along with panchanamas at Ex.P-5(1), in the light of (10) photographs with its negatives produced at Ex.P-6 (1 to 10), it amply shows short circuit of electricity on 17-04-04. The Respondent-GESCOM which has emphatically contended that the complainant has filed a false complaint by creating false documents in-collusion with the police to claim compensation, but they have not substantiated by any material particulars. It is the specific case of the complainant that in the vicinity of the hut of the complainant and others there is 11 KV and LT line of electricity and because of not maintaining proper distance between these two lines they came in-contact with each other and resulted which short circuit causing electricity spark which in-turn were burnt many huts including the hut of the complainant. So heavy burden lies on the Respondent-GESCOM to dis-prove this contention of the complainant. As stated supra except a bare statement that a false complaint has been filed by the complainant in-collusion with the police to claim compensation, Respondents have not substantiated by any co-gent and convincing material. When the Respondent-GESCOM has taken such a grave allegation of false-hood in the complaint and creation false documents in-collusion with the police, then we are at a loss to know as to how they kept mum without substantiating by any piece of evidence. Consequently it follows that the Respondent-GESCOM has utterly failed to prove this contention. It would be more-so when no material is forth-coming on behalf of Respondent-GESCOM to dis-prove the allegation of improper maintainance of 11 KV electric-wire & LT line and the two wire coming in-contact with each other resulting in-short-circuit. Of course in the written statement the Respondent-GESCOM has contended that they have properly maintained the distance between these two Lines. But they have failed to prove by any material particulars. So this bare statement of denial of the allegation will in no way be said that Respondents have proved that they had properly maintained the distance between the two lines of electric/wires as per Electricity Rules. Hence for all these reasons it follows that the Respondent-GESCOM has failed to dis-prove this contention of the complainant. The police complaint of the complainant and panchanama drawn by the V.A. & R.I. verified by Tahasildar and Special Report of Police amply show that due to short circuit, the huts in the vicinity were burnt. It also shows the hut of the complainant, one she buffalo, one cow and one haystack were burnt causing loss to the complainant. The panchanama drawn by the Revenue official at Ex.P-2 specifically shows the quantum loss sustained by the complainant with regard to the burnt of his hut, animal etc., totaling to Rs. 1,10,000/-.<br /> <br /> 10. As rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the Respondent, the panchanama at Ex.P-2 does not show the name of the complainant with regard to the affected person and it shows the name of one Amarappa S/o Sharanappa. But the police complaint at Ex.P-1 shows it is filed by the present complaint Ramalingappa S/o. Amarappa and Special Report at Ex.P-5 & Panchanama at Ex.P-5(1) drawn by PSI shows the name of complainant. So the name of Amarappa S/o Shanranappa appearing in Ex.P-2 as the person affected by the short-circuit, is none-other than the father of present complaint Ramalingappa who had filed the police complaint at Ex.P-1. So there cannot be any iota of doubt that no property of the complainant herein has been affected in the short circuit/fire that occurred on 17-04-04.<br /> <br /> 11. It is also the case of the complainant that after repairing his burnt hut/house he applied for restoration electricity supply to the Respondents and in-spite of his personal approach and requests the Respondents did not restore supply of electricity and till today they have not restored electricity supply to his hut, but they have issued electricity bill for these period. He has produced electricity demand bill of Rs. 1,330/- at Ex.P-7. The Respondents have also produced Ledger Extract of complainant’s installation at Ex.R-1 showing monthly consumption of electricity by the complainant Ramalingappa from July 2000 to June 2004. It also shows that the complainant/consumer has not paid electricity charges right from July 2000 to 2004 and subjected to outstanding dues of Rs. 1,075/-. This in-turn indicates that the Respondents have let loosed the consumer/complainant to use the electricity consumption even he committed default in payment of monthly electric charges. Admittedly the alleged short-circuit had taken place on 17-04-04, this itself show that on the date of this incident of short circuit the Respondent-GESCOM had continued to supply electricity to the installation of the complainant in-spite of non-payment of electricity charges right from July 2004 as could be seen from their own document at Ex.R-1. But however Respondents have contended that a false complaint is filed by the complainant in-collusion with the police without substantiating by material particulars. This is also a circumstance which goes against the Respondents.<br /> <br /> 12. It is also contended by the complainant that when he submitted his claim for grant of compensation it was not acted upon and so he got issued legal notice and Respondent NO-1 replied denying his claim. He has produced copy of legal notice got issued by him at Ex.P-8 and reply given by the Respondent-GESCOM at Ex.P-9. If Ex.P-8 & P-9 are taken into account in the light of our above discussion it goes without saying that there is a deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent in not settling claim of the complaint. Hence we hold there is deficiency in service by Respondents and point No-1 is answered in the affirmative.<br /> <br /> POINT NO:-2<br /> <br /> 13. The complainant has claimed Rs.1,10,000/- towards loss and Rs. 20,000/- towards damages for not restoring electricity supply and also for restoration for electricity to his hut/house. In this regard he has relied on the panchanama at Ex.P-2. This panchanama at Ex.P-2 shows loss of Rs. 50,000/- towards burnt of cattle shed, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of she buffalo, Rs. 5,000/- towards buffalo-calf and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of cow-calf and Rs. 40,000/- towards loss haystacke totaling to Rs. 1,10,000/-. This panchanama is drawn by Village Accountant & Revenue Inspector Jalihal, circle. Except this panchanama, the complainant has not produced the assessment of loss of items shown in the Ex.P-2. Of course the panchanama Ex.P-2 shows the loss sustained by the complainant due to short circuit but this panchanama does not show the specific value of burnt items but it is only an approximate valuation. So this panchanama cannot be taken as assessment of loss. The Special Report of PSI at Ex.P-5 and the panchanama regarding loss sustained by the complainant-Ramalingappa at Ex.P-5(1) shows the total loss of Rs. 42,800/-. Ex.P-5(1) the panchanama shows the value of burnt shed ( tin shed- 17x38’) at Rs. 20,000/-, value of buffalo-calf at Rs. 1,000/-, cow-calf at Rs. 1,000/- the value of one fan of Rs. 800/-, and the value of burnt haystake at Rs. 20,000/-totaling to Rs. 42,800/-. So we find much variation between the panchanama drawn by the Revenue Official at Ex.P-2 and the panchanama drawn by police at Ex.P-5(1) regarding loss sustained by complainant. As rightly argued by counsel for Respondents, generally no-cattle shed will be of the value of Rs. 50,000/-, haystack of value of Rs. 40,000/- she buffalo of value of Rs. 10,000/- and buffalo-calf & cow-calf each of value of Rs. 5,000/- as shown in the panchanama at Ex.P-2. So to say the value of all the items shown in the panchanama Ex.P-2 appears to be exorbitant and excessive. The complainant has not got assessed the loss of these items by any Technician or a Valuer. Under these circumstances and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of panchanama drawn by PSI at Ex.P-5(1) the total value of these items at best would be at Rs. 40,000/-. Hence the complainant is entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of his belongings.<br /> <br /> 14. In so far as awarding Rs. 20,000/- towards stoppage of electric supply and for restoration of electric supply is concerned, the complainant has not produced the electric bills for the earlier period to show the consumption of electricity to his hut/house. Similarly he has not produced any scrap of paper to show that he had requested Respondent-GESCOM for restoration of electric supply. The Ledger Extract at Ex.R-1 produced by the Respondents shows the non-payment of electricity charges of his installation right from July 2000 till June 2004 totaling to Rs. 1,075/-. The demand bill issued by the Respondents which is produced by complainant at Ex.P-7 shows outstanding dues of Rs. 1,330/- as on 12-12-04. Ex.R-1 the Ledger Extract shows the consumption of electricity by the complainant and non-payment of electricity charges from July 2000 till June 2004 and outstanding dues of Rs. 1,075/-. So the complainant being defaulter for non-payment of electricity charges right from July 2000 till April 2004 vide Ex.R-1 & at Ex.P-7 cannot be said that the electricity supply was stopped due to the incident of short circuit and thereby he is entitled for restoration of electric supply. He has to take a recourse with Respondent-GESCOM under appropriate provision and he is not entitled to the relief of restoration of the electricity in this complaint. Consequently the complainant is not entitled for compensation of Rs. 20,000/- towards damages for non-supply of electricity supply and restoration of electricity supply. <br /> <br /> 15. Hence in a nut-shell the complainant is only entitled to Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of his hut, animals and haystake. As per the demand bill produced by complainant at Ex.P-7 and Ledger Extract at Ex.R-1 and having regard to non-payment of electricity charges by the complainant, we feel it just and proper to deduct the outstanding due of Rs. 1,330/- in the compensation amount of Rs. 40,000/-. So after deducting Rs. 1,330/- in the awarded amount of Rs. 40,000/- the complainant is entitled for balance amount. In this view of the matter we pass the following order:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part.<br /> <br /> The complainant is awarded compensation of Rs. 40,000/- towards loss of his hut, animal and haystack etc., After deducting the outstanding due of Rs. 1,330/- the complainant is entitled for the balance amount only. The Respondent-GESCOM shall pay this balance amount within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> The relief regarding payment of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for the loss of electric supply and for restoration & electric supply as claimed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. Under these circumstances we direct the complainant to bear is own cost.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 26-09-06.)<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri. N.H. Savalagi<br /> President<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Sri.Pampannagouda <br /> Member.<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br /> Sd/-<br /> Smt.Kavita Patil <br /> Member.<br /> Dist.Consumer Forum-Raichur.<br /> <br />