Karnataka

Gadag

CC/108/2019

Bhimappa .Y. Lakkundi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Managing Director, HESCOM and Another - Opp.Party(s)

Komal M Hannikeri

29 Oct 2020

ORDER

-::O R D E R::-

 

BY: SMT.C.H.SAMIUNNISA ABRAR, PRESIDENT.

 

1.       The complainant has filed this complaint claiming direction to the OPs to pay policy amount of Rs.50,000/- on account of negligence towards fatal tragedy i.e., death of buffalo as per Circular issued by KPTCL with interest at the rate of 18% p.a from the date of accident, Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and such other relief.

-::Brief facts of the case are as under::-

2.       The case of the complainant is that, complainant is an agriculturist by profession and also doing dairying work for his livelihood and he is depending upon the earning of the same.  It is further submitted that, on 02.01.2015 at about 11-00 AM, the buffalo belongs to the complainant was grazing near converter situated at Malliyavar Plot.  By that time, the said buffalo came in contact with the live wire and died on the spot due to electrocution as the electric wires erected to the electric poles were not maintained by the OPs.  The OPs are the registered company under the Indian Companies Act and its duty is to supply electricity to the customers as per the Act and Rules.  It is further submitted that, the OPs have given electricity supply to the complainants, to supply the electricity, they have erected electric poles and wires which are older than 45 years, they are not in good condition and are in unscientific method and the OPs have not maintained the distance between the electric poles and as such, the wires were fallen down to land, which is very dangerous to the human beings.  The OPs are failed to follow the safety measures, which is a deficiency of service and negligence on their part, for that, the buffalo belonging to complainant died due to short circuit/electrocution.  It is further submitted that, after the death of buffalo due to short circuit, complainant gave a complaint to the OPs, OPs registered a complaint and conducted an investigation and the Veterinary Doctor conducted PM report.  As per the said report, complainant registered a complaint before the Gadag Police and recorded the statements of OP No.2 and the Section Officer, Lakkundi.  Thereafter, correspondence was done with the Superintendent Engineer, Hubli and conducted panchanama and given report and final burial was done.  It is further submitted that, the consumers of the locality have approached many times and told to set right the wires which were springing but, the OP No.2 has failed to set right the defects, for that the buffalo of the complainant was died due to electrocution which worth Rs.50,000/-.  The KPTCL has passed a Circular saying that, if any animal being die due to electrocution, the company has to compensate by paying Rs.50,000/-, but the complainant has not received any amount till today even after personal visit.  Therefore, the complainant got issued legal notice through his Advocate on 07.02.2019 by RPAD, the same was served on 08.02.2019, but the OP has failed to reply the same.  The cause of action arose on 07.052.2019, when the legal notice issued to OPs.   Hence, the OPs are liable to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.  towards deficiency in service and negligence, Rs.10,000/- towards cost and such other relief. 

3.       Registered the complaint and notice was ordered, as such OPs present before the Forum and filed written version, the contents are as follows.

 

 

Written Version of the OPs

The OPs contended that, the complainant is an agriculturist by profession and doing dairying work.  It is true that, on 02.01.2015, the buffalo belongs to complainant was grazing near LT poles situated at Malliyavar plot of Somapur road.  But it is denied that, the electric wires were not maintained by the OPs.  It is denied that, the OPs have given electricity supply to the complainant, to supply the electricity, they have erected electric poles and wires which are older than 45 years, they are not in good condition and are unscientific and the OPs are not maintained the distance between the electric poles and as such, the wires were fallen near the earth, which is very dangerous to the human beings.  It is further submitted that, while grazing at about 11-00 AM, the buffalo belongs to complainant was fighting with another buffalo and the horns were withholding with the guywire and with the single phase 230 volts electrical wire of LT protection Kit of converter and died, the same is caused due to negligence on the part of complainant itself.  It is the duty of complainant to look after the buffalo while he left for grazing in the field.  The HESCOM is an electricity supply company, they are running their offices for supplying the power to the customers as per their rules and regulations.  There is no deficiency of service on their part of OPs in maintaining the electric poles and wires and therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is false, frivolous, vexatious and the same is liable to be dismissed because the OPs are the Government undertaking company, working as per the rules and regulations of the Government.  It is submitted that, the reason for death of a buffalo is due to quarreling between two buffalos.  The same is informed to the OPs.  After that, a complaint was registered and PM was conducted by the Veterinary Doctor and complaint was registered with the Police, statement of complainant, Section Officer, Lakkundi and OP No.2 was recorded and reported about the incident to the Superintendent Engineer, Hubli and thereafter, burial was completed and there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  It is not true that, the complainant approached the OPs several times and told that, there is no springing of the wires with the electric poles and to set right the same and due to the negligence on the part of officials of OP No.2, for that the buffalo was died and the complainant was suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.50,000/-.  As per the rules and regulations of the OPs, the compensation of Rs.50,000/- is to be given if an animal died in electrical accident, but it went in vain.  It is not true that, the OPs have not replied to the notice issued by the complainant because, the OPs sanctioned Rs.5,000/- on 20.08.2015 as per the law and the request of the complainant cannot be sanctioned as there was no rule to sanction Rs.50,000/- on the date of death of buffalo belongs to complainant.  Moreover, the complainant has signed on the indemnity bond for Rs.100/- on the date of receiving compensation of Rs.5,000/- as full and final compensation, informing that, he will not go before any Court or tribunal for higher compensation.   Therefore, there is a lack of basic ingredients required for Consumer Dispute, the present complaint does not fall under the Consumer Protection Act and hence, the present complaint is to be dismissed in limine.        

4.       The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and filed 03 documents.  The Assistant Executive Engineer filed his affidavit evidence and 04 documents have been produced.

COMPLAINANT FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
C-1	Legal Notice
C-2	Postal Receipt
C-3	Postal Acknowledgement

 

OPs FILED DOCUMENTS AS follows

	Particulars of Documents	Date of Document
OP-1	Order of OPs
OP-2 & 3	Receipt for having received compensation amount
OP-4	Bond executed by the complainant

 

5.     On the basis of above said pleading, oral and documentary evidence, the following points arises for adjudication which are as follows:

1.       Whether the Complainant proves that, the complaint filed by him is in time?

2.       What order?

6.       Our Answer to the above points are:-

1.  

                     

2.  

REASONS

7.       Point No-1 & 2:- Since both the points are identical and interlinked with each other and hence, we proceed both together.   

8.       The complainant has filed this complaint against the OPs stating that, the buffalo died due to the negligency of OPs that is when the buffalo was going for grazing, a guywire was grounding by that time, the buffalo came in contact with electrical short circuit.  Further submits that, he had received Rs.5,000/- by the OPs on 20.08.2015, but there is a circular pertaining to this accident by KPTCL stating that, if any accident occurs, the compensation is fixed for Rs.50,000/-.  Hence, complainant alleged that, they have given only Rs.5,000/- to him.

9.  On the other hand, OPs filled a written version submitting that, they have not made any deficiency, since on 12.08.2015 itself, complainant received Rs.5,000/- from the OPs and he had executed a bond stating that, he will not claim any amount after receiving the claim amount. 

10.  Further, it is true that, the circular had been issued by the KPTCL fixing an accidental amount of Rs.50,000/- in the year 2018, but the said accident had been occurred in the year 2015 and complainant received the amount from the OPs. 

11.     On-going through the records on file, it is an admitted fact that, the buffalo met with an accident and died due to heavy electrical shock.  It is also an admitted fact that, the complainant received the amount of Rs.5,000/- from the OPs as full and final settlement as per the document produced by the OPs and the same is also admitted by the complainant.  The complainant produced the notice before the Commission stating that, the limitation starts from the date of notice issued by the complainant i.e., complainant issued a notice on 17.09.2019 but, the incident had been occurred in the year 2015 itself and the amount also received in the same year.  Such being the fact, merely issuing the notice cannot extend the limitation.  It is clear in the citation cited at I (2016) CPJ 190 (NC) in the case of Jansatta Sahkari Awas Samit Ltd., Vs. Kone Elevators India Pvt. Ltd., and Another wherein it has been held that:

I(2016) CPJ 190 (NC)

JANSATTA SAHKARI AWAS SAMIT LTD.,

Vs.

KONE ELEVATORS INDIA PVT. LTD.,

 

(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 24A, 21(a)(1) – Limitation – Agreement executed to install lifts – Non-installation – Accrual of cause of action – Cause of action arose when two letters sent by opposite party insisting on complainant to place purchase order for supply of missing part from site – Complainant’s plea that cause of action arose when legal notice sent to opposite party cannot be accepted – Merely sending a notice does not constitute a cause of action nor does it extend period of limitation – As no application for condonation of delay has been filed there is no occasion to examine whether there was sufficient cause for delay or not – Complaint is time barred.

Hence, Commission comes to the conclusion that, complainant is not entitled for any relief.  Hence, we answer point No.1 in Negative.

12.     Point No.2:-        For the reasons and discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following:-

6698606.  

1.       The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.  No order as to costs.

2.       Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.  

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and then pronounced by me in the Open Court 29^th day of October-2020)

 

 

 (Shri B.S.Keri)                                        (Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

       MEMBER                                                      PRESIDENT