State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Executive Engineer,Maharashtra State ... vs Anil Krishnarao Patil, on 17 February, 2010
Date of filing:02.12.2004 Date of order:17.02.2010 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD . F.A. NO.: 2231 OF 2004 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO. : 173 OF 2004 DISTRICT FORUM : JALGAON Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Girad Road, Pachora, Jalgaon. APPELLANT (Org.Opp.No.2) VERSUS Anil Krishnarao Patil, At Indira Nagar, Bhadgaon Road, Tq.Pachora, Dist.Jalgaon. RESPONDENT (Org.Complainant) Coram : Shri.S.G.Deshmukh, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Shri.D.S.Kulkarni for appellant, Respondent in person.
O R A L O R D E R Per Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
1. Executive Engineer, M.S.E.B., Pachora, Dist.Jalgaon challenges in this appeal the judgment and order passed by District Forum, Jalgaon in complaint case No.173/04 decided on 10.11.2004.
2. The facts giving arise to this appeal are as under.
Complainant Anil Krishnrao Patil is resident of Pachora, Dist.Jalgaon. complainant is owner of agricultural land of joint family property Gut No.247 at Mouje Wadi Shewale, Tq.Pachora, Dist.Jalgaon. Complainant is running Government Agro Nursery. There were trees of various fruits and plants of Gawati Chaha, Aloe vera, Safed Musali etc. Transformer was installed by respondent in the field owned by complainant. Electric supply to the complainant and other villagers were given from this transformer. On 17.2.2003 in the evening at 4 to 6 p.m. the said transformer was burst and field of complainant caught fire. In the said fire mango trees, Safed Musali trees , Aloe Vera plants and other fruits plants were burnt to ashes. PVC pipe installed for irrigating land by drip irrigation system were also burnt.
Revenue and police department conducted panchanama and submitted their reports. Complainant approached to Dist.Agriculture Committee. They also inspected the field and submitted their report. Complainant issued letter to Jr. Engineer, M.S.E.B., Pachora but they did not take cognizance on his application. As per report given by police authority, revenue authority and agriculture officer complainant suffered huge loss. Therefore complainant issued legal notice to MSEB on 9.5.2003 and claimed Rs.9,00,000/- in total. The said notice was replied by MSEB on 21.7.2003 and denied the claim of complainant . Therefore complainant approached the Forum.
3. Appellant appeared before the Forum and denied the complaint. Appellant denied the incident of sparking or bursting of transformer. Appellant also denied the loss caused to the complainant by fire. It is submitted that complainant is doing farming for commercial purpose therefore he is not consumer. It is also submitted that complainant did not produce any evidence about his actual loss. It is further submitted that Electrical Inspector, Nashik investigated the matter and reported that the said fire was not due to short circuit.
4. After hearing both the parties Dist.Forum allowed the complaint and directed appellant to pay Rs.3,49,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from 17.2.2003.
5. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order M.S.E.B. came in appeal.
6. Notices of final hearing were issued to both the parties. Learned counsel Shri.D.S.Kulkarni appeared on behalf of appellant. Respondent appeared with his counsel Shri.Nikam. Learned counsel Shri.Kulkarni submitted that incident of fire due to short circuit is totally false. Responsible officer of M.S.E.B. from Pachora visited the spot and found that D.P. was in working condition on next day also. Statements of adjacent land owners of complainant were recorded by Assistant Electrical Inspector, Chalisgaon. According to said statements electric supply was never disrupted due to any sparking or fire. All the farmers were irrigating their lands at relevant time and after alleged accident also. Shri.Jadhav from M.S.E.B., Pachora filed his report that fire was not due to short circuit but from unknown reason. It is further submitted that after inspecting the incident of fire as alleged by complainant the same was reported to Electrical Inspector, Nashik. Electrical Inspector come to the conclusion after investigation and scrutiny of all the reports that the said fire was not due to short circuit.
Adv.Kulkarni submitted that though the fire was there, pachanama of various authorities were there, but the cause of fire was not the short circuit but something else. The Dist.Forum did not consider the fact and record in right perspective while allowing complaint.
7. The learned counsel Shri.Nikam for respondent submitted that complainant is consumer of M.S.E.B.. He is having degree in agriculture. He is running Government Approved Nursery. Fire was caused due to bursting of transformer. Panchanamas were drawn by police, Revenue and agriculture officer and all the panchanamas` concluded that there was huge loss caused to the complainant. Dist.Forum rightly considered all the facts and record.
8. We heard arguments of both sides. It is admitted fact that there is fire in the field of complainant. But the fact of sparking or bursting of transformer was denied by M.S.E.B. Panchamas were done after incident of fire. Therefore trees, plants were burnt is true fact. But cause of fire was not short circuit. In the reply of notice M.S.E.B. specifically denied the incident of bursting or short circuit in the transformer. The statements of adjacent farmers were recorded by officer of M.S.E.B. in those statements all the farmers contended that there was no disruption in the electric supply any time on 16.2.2003 and 17.2.2003. They stated in their statement that supply was there and all of them irrigated their lands. The evidence brought on record shows that transformer was never electrocuted (burnt) due to electric short circuit, which could have been the negligence of the appellant. Electric Inspector is an independent person appointed by Government. His report clearly shows that transformer was not burnt due to short circuit. Electrical Inspector is the final authority. After getting reports from all the subordinate officers Electrical Inspector, Nashik concluded that said fire was not due to short circuit. It was for the complainant to prove that incident of fire took pace due to negligence on the part of appellant. Complainant did not bring on record any evidence to show that cause of fire is the negligence of appellant that is bursting of transformer due to short circuit. In the absence of any evidence about negligence on the part of appellant we can not hold appellant responsible for the same. We are of the view that Dist. Forum did not consider the fact and record in right perspective. It is an admitted fact that incident of fire occurred in the land of complainant but cause of fire is not short circuit but something else for which appellant can not be blamed. After considering all the facts we came to the conclusion that Dist.Forum committed error while allowing complaint. Therefore we are inclined to allow the appeal. Hence the order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is allowed.
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Forum is hereby quashed and set aside.
3. Complaint stands dismissed.
4. No order as to cost.
5. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.
Mrs.Uma S.Bora S.G.Deshmukh, Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane