Date of Filing : 20.08.2011
Date of Order : 27.03.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 27th MARCH 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, B.A., LLB. …….. MEMBER
CC No. 188 / 2011
Sri. Srinivasareddy,
S/o. Narasihappa,
Aged 50 years,
R/a: Gandraganhalli Village,
Murugamalla Post, Chintamani Taluk,
Chikkaballapura District.
(By Sri. M.C. Ravikumar, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Managing Director,
Bangalore Electrical Supply Co. (BESCOM),
Office at Krishna Rajendra Circle,
Bangalore – 560 001.
2. Office of BESCOM,
Rep. by the Executive Engieer,
BESCOM,
Chikkaballapura.
3. Office of the Asst. Executive Engineer,
BESCOM, Chintamani,
Chikkaballapur District.
(By Sri. B.S. Vijayakumari, Adv. for OP3) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the Complainant made u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act seeking direction to the OP to pay Rs.6,10,000/- are necessary:
Ops have installed Transformer in the land of the Complainant which supplies electricity to all and also to the Complainant. OP has not taken care it properly. The lines were also get intersected to the Mango Trees growth giving cause for electrocution. Ops have not inspected and maintained the installation properly. Complainant had grown Sapota, Mango & Fodder Grass in the said land and requested the Ops several times to shift the Transformer to a safe place so that there is no scope for obstruction by plant and tree grown to the Transformer. But, the Ops did not care to it. On 17.10.2010 at 1.30 PM on a bright sunny day the grass and other creepers were dry, due to short circuit in the pole where the Transformer was installed. there was an electronic spark come out, due to which the dried creepers and the grown grass at a distance from the Transformer caught fire. It was a fodder grown grass for the cattle. Complainant informed the officials of the OP3, but no person came immediately. Complainant informed the Fire Brigade and the firemen came and took measures to curtail the fire. Because of these, there was damage to one acre of plot due to fire as the plastic pipe and gate valves got burnt, mango tree growth in the said one acre land aged about 5 years, yielding crop having girth of 1 ½ feet caught fire and complete crop of 2011 came to be destroyed, loss of Sapota crop, loss of fodder grass. Hence, the Complainant is entitled for Rs.5,10,000/- towards loss and Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation.
2. In brief version of Ops are:-
The existence of the Transformer in the land of the Complainant, short circuit, loss of fodder grass, damage to the mango trees & Sapota Trees are admitted. As per the norms, Complainant should not have grown these things in the land and he should have taken safety measures. Hence, Complainant is not consumer. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their cases, parties have filed their respective affidavits. Complainant has filed documents. Parties have filed written arguments.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are as under:
POINTS
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
(B) What order ?
5. Our answers to the above points are as under:
(A) Positive
(B) As per details order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Points A & B – Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant is the owner of land bearing Survey No. 60/3 of Gandraganhalli Village, Murugamalla Post, Chintamani Taluk. It is also an admitted fact that in the said land of the Complainant, OP has erected Transformer which supplying electricity to the other persons and also to the Complainant. As per Meter No. GDL 29620, Complainant had paid electricity charges. That means, he is a consumer. Thus the contention to the contrary is an untenable one.
7. It is also an admitted fact that on 17.10.2010 there was short circuit in the Transformer, as a result, fodder grass which was grown in the land of the Complainant got fired and plastic pipe and gate valves got burnt and certain Mango trees and Sapota trees were also damaged. The Fire Brigade on intimation came to the spot and extinguished the fire. The same is corroborated by the report of the Fire Brigade dtd. 18.10.2010. It is also intimated to the Police who registered the case and done mahazar. The relevant portion of the mahazar drew by the police reads thus:
“¸ÀzÀj mÁæ£ïì¥sÁªÀÄðgï¤AzÀ ¨ÉAQAiÀÄ QrUÀ¼ÀÄ d«Ää£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ©zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À°è zÀ£ÀUÀ½UÁV ¨É¼É¹zÀÝ ¹ÃªÉÄ ºÀÄ®Äè, CzÀgÀ°è £ÉnÖgÀĪÀ ªÀiÁªÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À¥ÉÇÃl VqÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀÄnÖzÀÝAvÉ PÀAqÀħgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¸ÀzÀjà d«ÄãÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 1 JPÀgÉAiÀĶÖzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À°è ¥ÀǪÀð ¥À²ÑªÀĪÁV ªÀiÁªÀÅ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸À¥ÉÇÃl VqÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉnÖzÀÄÝ JtÂPÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV 32 ªÀiÁ«£À VqÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ 32 ¸À¥ÉÇÃl VqÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉnÖzÀÄÝ VqÀUÀ½UÉ ¤ÃgÁ¬Ä¸À®Ä ºÀj ¤ÃgÁªÀj ¥ÉÊ¥ÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ UÉÃmï ªÁ¯ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß, ¦«¹ ¥ÉÊ¥ïUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀjà J¯Áè ªÉÊAiÀÄgï, ¥ÉÊ¥ÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ UÉÃmï ªÁ¯ïUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ PÀgÀPÀ¯ÁVgÀÄvÉÛ. ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À°è ¨É¼É¢zÀÝ ¹ÃªÉÄ ºÀÄ®Äè ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ ºÉÆÃVgÀÄvÉÛ. EzÀjAzÀ CfðzÁgÀjUÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ MAzÀÄ ®PÀë gÀÆ.UÀ¼ÀµÀÄÖ £ÀµÀÖ ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¹gÀĪÀÅzÁV ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛzÁgÀgÁzÀ £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ”
That means, because of electrocution the Complainant’s property has been damaged to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/-. There is nothing to disbelieve the same.
8. It was contended by the Learned Counsel for the OP that the Complainant should not have grown grass or trees in the land. It is untenable contention. Complainant is the owner of the land in question. He has right to grow any crop he deems fit, that cannot be abridged or taken away by the Ops. Ops while erecting the Transformer should have taken all precautions. If Ops have taken precautionary measures, damages would not have caused to the property. There is no such insulation has been made to the Transformer. This is negligence on the part of OP and this is deficiency in service. When that is the case, Ops are bound to reimburse the loss that has been caused to the Complainant.
9. It is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Ops. Ops have not acquired the land of the Complainant for erection of the Transformer. It has erected the Transformer in the land of the Complainant against the wish of the Complainant. Complainant requested the Ops to shift the Transformer to a safe place, but they have not done. This is nothing but deficiency in service. Complainant informed the Ops on 17.10.2010 itself regarding damage caused. Ops never cared to come to the spot and do nothing. This is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. OP while erecting the Transformer should have closed it with short circuit proof material so that any short circuit will not affect the land or people, but that has not been done. This is nothing but deficiency in service.
10. Complainant has claimed Rs.5,10,000/- as loss caused to him. There is no material in this regard. Even Phani produced by the Complainant does not prove it. The mahazar that has been produced by the Complainant proves that loss is estimated at Rs.1,00,000/- by the competent authority. Hence, Complainant is entitled for only Rs.1,00,000/- and not Rs.6,10,000/- as claimed. Complainant never stated how many Mango trees were there and when it was planted and how many Sapota trees and when it was planted and which grass he brought and how much it was grown. There is no proof to show whether these trees were yielding fruits. There is no expert opinion to show or to say regarding loss sustained by the Complainant. Any way mahazar drawn by the Police at the instance of the Complainant and produced by the Complainant proves that there was loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence, OP is bound to reimburse it. Ops at least now have to remove this Transformer from the Complainant’s land so that they can avoid incurring such payment to such people in future. Under these circumstances, it is for them to decide the matter. Hence, we hold the above points accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. Ops are directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @ 12% P.A. from 17.10.2010 until payment within 30 days from the date of this Order.
3. Ops are also further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the Complainant.
4. Ops are directed to send the amount to the Complainant as ordered at (2) & (3) above by Demand Draft through RPAD and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 45 days.
5. Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.
6. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 27th day of March 2012.
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
