Karnataka

Bagalkot

CC/120/2021

Gangawwa D/o Irappa Panashetti - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Section Officer, Hubli Electricity Supply Company Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

S V Kondaguli

24 Nov 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BAGALKOT.

C.C.No.120/2021

Date of filing: 11/10/2021

Date of disposal: 24/11/2022

                                                                                       

P R E S E N T :-

(1)	Shri.Vijaykumar M. Pawale,     B.A. LL.B. (Spl.)	President.
(2)	Shri.R.S.Dandannavar,                           B.A.	Member.
(3)	Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar,                             B.A. LL.B.	Lady Member.

COMPLAINANT :

Gangawwa D/o Irappa Panashetti, Age: 58 Years, Occ: Agriculture & Household Work, R/o: Bidari Village, Tq: Jamakhandi, Dist.Bagalkot.                                                        (Rep. by Shri.S.V.Kondaguli, Adv.

- V/S -

OPPOSITE PARTIES:	1.	The Section Officer, Hubli Electricity Supply Co. Ltd., Todalabagi, Tq:Jamakhandi, Dist. Bagalkot.
	2.	The Assistant Executive Engineer El, O & M Sub Division, Jamakhandi, Tq:Jamakhandi, Dist.Bagalkot.        (Rep. by Shri.S.M.Koujalagi, Adv.                                        for OP.No.1 & 2).
	3.	The Executive Engineer Elct., O & M Division, Jamakhandi, Tq:Jamkhandi, Dist.Bagalkot.          (Ex-parte).

JUDGEMENT

 

DELIVERED BY SHRI.VIJAYKUMAR M. PAWALE, PRESIDENT

 

1.      This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/sec. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as “OPs” in this order) for seeking order directing the Ops to pay Rs.6,75,000/- to the complainant for the damage of the Sugar Cane Crop and Rs.2,50,000/- towards drip irrigation system/installations and also Ops to pay Rs.1,20,000/- towards cost of cultivation and Rs.50,000/- compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation and also to grant any other reliefs which deem fit.

The facts averred in the complaint, in brief, are as shown below:

2.      The complainant is the owner and in possession of the agricultural land bearing R.S.No.281*/3 measuring 08 Acre– 10 Guntas irrigated through Krishana River and also through bore-well situated in Bidari Village of Jamakhandi Taluka. The said property is ancestral property and complainant has obtained the electricity connection from OPs bearing R.R.No.BDRIP-39062. The OPs have installed the electrical transformer towards the southern side of the said land, and through the said transformer the live electrical wires are passing through the land of the complainant, but said wires are not properly maintained by Ops and they were endangering to human life and property. The complainant and other neighboring land owners were frequently requested the Ops to get them correct, but they did not respond to it.

3.      Further in the complaint it is stated that on 24/12/2020 when the complainant was in house, she received message from the maid servant of the land, who informed that the electric wires in the land of the complainant were suddenly short-circuited due to loosing of the wires between two poles by touching each other and live wires have fallen down on the standing crop of the complainant and thereby entire crop of the complainant was set on fire including drip pipeline which were came under fire. The said Fire mishap occurred due to negligence on the part of the Ops officials and their subordinates who did not take safety measures though the complainant and other neighboring land owners were brought to their knowledge in respect of the live electrical wires which were passing through their lands in dangerous manner. The 04A-05G standing crop of the complainant and also there is loss of drip irrigation system in the complainant’s land has also burnt causing loss to the complainant. So like this due to negligence on the part of the Ops’ officials, the complainant has sustained loss of standing sugarcane crops, cultivation cost and drip irrigation system totally worth of Rs.10,45,000/-. In respect of this firemishap complaint came to be lodged in the jurisdictional Police Station and same has been registered in A.F.No.11/2020 and on 24.12.2020 the panchanama has been drawn and First Grade Revenue Inspector have also visited the land and also submitted their report about the loss caused to the standing crop. The complainant approached the Ops requesting them to pay the damages, but they did not care about it and hence complainant got issued legal notice to the OPs and the said notices served upon the Ops, but they did not comply with the said notices and even they did not reply to the said notices. Hence, complainant has filed the present complaint.  

        

4.   After registering the complaint, the OP.No.1 & 2 in response to the notices issued to them, appeared through their counsel and the OP.No.3 even after service of notice, has not appeared in this case and not engaged any advocate on his behalf. Hence OP.No.3 is placed Ex-parte. OP.No.1 filed written version to the complainant’s complaint and same is adopted by OP.No.2 by filling memo.

 

 5.     OP.No.1 in his written version admitted that the complainant is the owner of the land bearing R.S.No.281/3  measuring 08 acre 10 Gs situated at Bidari Village and also about supply of electricity connection from the Ops. But OP.No.1 has denied all other complaint averments making allegation against Ops in respect of deficiency of service on their part. Further OP.No.1 contended that the subordinates of the Ops are always visiting and inspecting the spots where the live wires are passed and the poles are fixed and there are no any mistakes or irregularities committed by officials of Ops.

 

6.      Further in the written version OP.No.1 contended that on 24.12.2020 no untoward incident has been occurred in the land of the complainant. The burning of the crops in the land of the complainant and drip system might be for the other reasons and not on account of short circuit in the live wire passing through the land of the complainant and the complainant has lodged false complaint against the Ops and basing on the same AF.No.11/2020 has been registered by police. The panchanama is drawn by the Revenue Inspector, at the behest of the complainant and filed the false report. On the basis of the report of the First Grade Revenue Inspector, the Tahasildar, has opined that it is happened due to the negligence of the Ops. The report of F.I.R. and the opinion of the Tahasildar, Jamkhandi regarding the loss of the crops in the land are prepared in the venue of the Tahasildar Office and not actually inspected or verified the loss at the spot. Further OP.No.1 contended that the complainant managed the Assistant Director of the Agriculture, Jamakhandi to assess the loss in greater extent than the actual loss caused to the complainant.

7.      Further in the written version OP.No.1 contended that the complainant has issued notice to the Ops with false facts and by giving wrongful information to their counsel. Hence the Ops did not take any action against the said notice. Therefore the complaint filed by the complainant is false and needs to be dismissed with costs.  

8.      To substantiate his case the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents which have been marked as Exhibit C-1 to C-16.

9.      On the contrary OP.No.1 & 2 in support of their contentions have not filed their affidavit evidence and also not produced any documents.

10.     Heard arguments from both sides, perused the written argument submitted by Advocate for complainant and entire records.

11.    The points that arise for our consideration are as under:

1. Whether the complainant has proved that on 24.12.2020 fire mishap taken place in his land due to deficiency of service on the part of Ops?
2. What Order?

 

12.  

 

1. Point No.1 : In the affirmative.
2. Point No.2 : As per final order for the following

R E A S O N S

 

13.    Point No.1:- The complainant in his affidavit evidence stated more or less as averred in the complaint and produced documents Exhibit C-1 to C-16.

 

1. Ex.C-1 is Record of Rights extract of the land bearing survey No.281/3 of Bidari Village and it discloses that the complainant is the owner of the said land as on the date of alleged fire mishap.
2.  Ex.C-2 is copy of the complaint given to Savalagi Police Station and it discloses that the adjacent land owner by name Sambhaji Chawan has given complaint in respect of fire mishap taken place in his land and complainant's land and same has been registered as A.F.No.11/2020 in Savalagi Police Station.
3.  Ex.C-3 is Special report dated:24.12.2020 submitted by S.H.O. Savalagi, Police Station to S.P. Bagalkot and copies of the same have been sent to DSP, CPI Jamakhandi and Tahasildar and Executive Magistrate, Jamakhandi. It also discloses that the the complainant's land's adjacent land owner by name Sambhaji Chawan has given complaint in respect of fire mishap taken place in his land and complainant's land due to deficiency of service on the part of Ops and also loss caused to him as well as adjacent land owner in the said fire mishap.
4. Ex.C-4 is Village Accountant, Bidari/Janawad report dated:29.12.2020 given to Tahasildar, Jamakhandi and it also which discloses that fire mishap incident has occurred in complainant land on 24.12.2020 causing loss to the complainant by burning of sugar cane crop worth about Rs.4,00,000/-.
5. Ex.C-5 is application/letter written by complainant to OP.No.1-Section Officer, HESCOM 110 KV, Todalabagi requesting to furnish him Certificate in-respect of fire mishap incident that occurred in complainant land on 24.12.2020 causing loss to the complainant.
6. Ex.C-6 is Service Certificate issued by OP.No.1-Section      Officer, O & M Sub-Division, HESCOM, Savalagi and it discloses that the complainant has taken electricity supply connection to the bore-well situated in her land its R.R.No.BDRIP-39062.
7. Ex.C-7 is Fire mishap Certificate dated:04.12.2020 issued by the Fire Extinguishing station Officer of Bagalkot Fire Extinguishing station. It discloses that the  information in respect of fire mishap incident occurred   was given to Fire Extinguishing Station on 24.12.2020 at 14-14 hrs through phone No.108 of Control room and Fire Extinguishing vehicle was gone to the spot on 15-03 hrs and fire extinguishing work was completed at 16:30 hrs and 12 acres sugarcane crop partly has been burnt in the fire-mishap incident.
8. Ex.C-8 to 11 are photographs of land where sugar cane crop burnt.
9. Ex.C-12 is copy of legal notice dated: 23.03.2021 issued by Advocate for complainant to Ops.
10. Ex.C-13 to 16 are postal receipts and acknowledgements which shows that the legal notices issued to Ops are served to the addressees. 

 

14.    Looking to documents stated supra, it is very much clear that, as alleged in the complaint, fire mishap has taken place in the complainant’s land and sugar cane crop standing in the complainant’s land has been burnt causing loss to the complainant. Further it is clear that due to negligence of the Ops in not maintaining the electrical wires properly which have loosened and were hanged in the complainant’s land and other lands is the cause for fire mishap. The investigation report submitted by S.H.O. of Savalagi Police Station to S.P. Bagalkot, Report of Village Accountant, Bidari/Janawad and Certificate of District Fire Fighter Office, Bagalkot are all prepared while discharging their official duties and same cannot be thrown-away or discarded unless there is contrary evidence to show that no fire mishap incident has taken place in the complainant’s land due to deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. Admittedly, Ops have not adduced any contrary evidence to discard the evidence adduced by the complainant in this case except denial of complainant’s averments in respect of fire mishap incident by filing written version. 

15.    Learned Advocate for Ops in the written version simply contended complainant has filed false complaint and basing on the same false documents have been created. But to this effect admittedly, Ops have not adduced any evidence to show that all the documents produced by the complainant have been created by the complainant in collusion with Government Department Officials. So those documents cannot be discarded.  Moreover, the case of the complainant is corroborated by vital evidence i.e. Panchanama prepared by the Village Accountant Bidari/Junawad Village on the same day of the fire mishap incident along with other documents. The Ops have not adduced any affidavit evidence of independent witness to show that no fire mishap incident has been occurred in the complainant’s land as alleged in the complaint and all the documents are fabricated and not genuine. If really documents have been created by the complainant in collusion with officials of the Government officials, Ops ought to have filed Criminal Complaint against said officials. But Ops have not done so and not adduced any evidence to this effect. 

16.    Further it is to be noted here that Fire Extinguishing officer’s certificate/report discloses that the fire mishap incident has occurred in the land complainant on 24.12.2020 and Fire Extinguishing vehicle was gone to the spot on 15-03 P.M. and call was given in respect of fire mishap to Fire Extinguishing Department at 14-14 P.M.

17.   Anyway, looking to Fire Extinguishing officer’s certificate issued by Fire Extinguishing Station coupled with other Government officials reports including the complaint lodged by Sambhaji S/o Dajibha Chawhan who happens to be complainant in C.C.No.119/2021 on the file of this commission, it cannot be stated that no fire mishap incident has taken place in the complainant’s land and complainant’s claim is false and bogus.   

18.   It is to be noted here that The Hon’ble State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Mumbai, in F.A. NO.1349,1350,1351-07 (Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D.C. Ltd., Osmanabad Tq: Dist: Osmanabad and another V/s Pratap Raoji Adsul), in para No.9 of the order, observed as under:

   “9. On the contrary, the original complainant i.e. respondent herein had immediately given intimation of the incident to the police as well as to the appellants. Moreover, the Talathi prepared the panchanama on 20.03.2017 i.e. on the next date of the incident that took place on 19.03.2007. It shows that the sugarcane crop of all these three respondent i.e., original complainant’s has been damaged due to fire. In complaint made in police also the complainants mentioned that due to sparking from electric wires passing though their fields their sugarcane crop was burnt. The said complaints and spot panchanama prepared by Talathi concerned are sufficient in the absence of the report of the Electrical Inspector to prove that the sparking took place due to friction of the electric wires passing through the field of complainant and hence sugarcane crop caught fire and F.A.No.1349, 1350, 1351-07 damaged. Hence deficiency in service provided by appellant to respondents is proved.” 

19.  Further the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, in a case reported in (2020) CJ 211 (N.C.) (Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., V/s. Sukhwinder Singh and others) held as under:

      “Electricity – Fire accident due to earth fault – deficiency in service – Complaint allowed by Fora below – Complainants are Consumers of Petitioner Corporation despite the fact that electricity to them was being supplied through transformer, installed in adjoining field – In absence of any particular cause, very fact that there was a spark from high tension line passing through field of complainants, indicates that line was not being properly maintained – Quantum of compensation upheld – Revision Petition dismissed. (Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2 (1) (o) and 14 (1) (d).”

20.  Further the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, reported in a case (2020) CJ 747 (N.C.) (Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Company Ltd., and another V/s. Kimudu Monu and others.) has held as under:

         “Electricity – Death due to electrocution – Deceased came into contact with a detached electric wire from supply – line – State Commission reduced compensation from Rs.2,60,000/- to Rs.1,30,000/- along with 9% interest with costs quantified at Rs.2,500/- Had power company been vigilant alleged unauthorized extension would have been removed by them soon and incident would not have happened – Responsibility for death of deceased cannot be denied by OP – Even if deceased was earning only Rs.3,000/- per month, compensation awarded by District Forum cannot be said to be on higher side and did not warrant any kind of reduction by State Commission – Power Company directed to pay sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to all complainants together.”

21.    So looking to the principles stated in the above said decisions and evidence on record this commission is of the view that the complainant has proved his case that the fire mishap incident has occurred due to negligence on the part of  Ops and so there is deficiency of service on the part of Ops.

22.  Now the point to be decided is how much of compensation has to be awarded to complainant. The complainant contended that she has sustained Rs.6,75,000/- because of burning of Sugarcane Crop. To this effect she has not produced any document to show that what was the cost of the sugarcane crop by taking necessary document from sugarcane factories or any other competent authority. Further she has also not produced how-much of sugarcane crop has been sent sugarcane-factory. Even Ops have also not produced any document in this regard.

 

23.    So under such circumstances, we feel it is just and proper to hold that 01 acre sugarcane crop price as Rs.1,20,000/- i.e. Rs.3,000/- per gunta for assessing the compensation to be awarded to the complainant in this case. As per the investigation report of the ASI, Savalagi Police Station submitted to D.S.P., C.P.I. and Taluka Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Jamakhandi on 24.12.2020 the sugarcane crop grown in the complainant’s lands is burnt only to the extent of 04A-00Guntas and the said report has been produced by the complainant himself. Therefore, we feel it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- for sugarcane crop loss. Further, complainant must have sent burnt sugar-cane crop to some sugar-factory and so she might have received or going to receive amount from the concerned sugarcane factory in future in respect of the burnt sugarcane crop supplied to sugar factory. But admittedly   complainant as well as OPs have not produced any document to show how much of sugarcane crop has been sent to sugarcane factory and out of said sugarcane crop total weight, how much of weight has been deducted by the factory due to burnt sugarcane crop. Normally, sugar factories will deduct 25% in the total weight for burnt sugarcane crop.
So considering all these facts we feel it is just and proper to award Rs.1,20,000/- to the compensation to the complainant in respect of loss of sugarcane crop (25% of Rs.4,80,000/- comes to Rs.1,20,000/-).  Hence complainant is entitled for Rs.1,20,000/- towards sugarcane crop loss. Further complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony since even after the receipt of legal notice issued by the complainant, Ops have not taken any steps to give compensation to complainant. Further complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

 

24.    It is to be noted here that the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that she has sustained loss of Rs.1,20,000/- for cultivation charges and Rs.2,50,000/- towards burning of drip irrigation system installed in her land. Even in the reports of the police records there is no mention about cultivation charges and burning of drip irrigation system in the complainant’s land. So, complainant is not entitled any compensation in respect of the said alleged cultivation charges and burning of drip irrigation system in her land. Hence, we answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.

 

25.   Point No.2 : In view of answer on point No.1, we proceed to pass the following

O R D E R

1.      The complainant’s complaint is partly allowed.

2.      The OP.No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.1,20,000/- for loss of sugarcane crop to the complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of legal notice i.e. 30.03.2021 within 45 days from the date of this order.  

3.      Further OP.No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

4.      In case Ops not paid the compensation amount to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, then Ops are liable to pay interest @12% p.a. instead of 9% till payment of Rs.1,20,000/- to the complainant. 

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

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him on computer, corrected, signed and then pronounced on this the   24^th  day of November  2022).

 

     

(Shri.Vijaykumar M. Pawale)

President

 

(Shri.Rangangouda S. Dandannavar)

Member

 

(Smt.C.H.Samiunnisa Abrar)

Lady Member