National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Karnataka Power Transmission Corp. ... vs Mani Thomas on 9 March, 2006
ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
1. Vakalatnamas filed by both the parties are taken on record.
2. Appellant, Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. (KPTCL), preferred Appeal No. 7 of 2002 against the order dated 11.9.2001 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore, in complaint No. 33 of 1996, wherein compensation of Rs, 3.00 lakh was awarded to the complainant Shri Mani Thomas along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment.
Brief facts of the case are as under:
Complainant (respondent) has filed a complaint before the State Commission claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 11,9 5,400 with interest @ 18% p.a. for the loss caused to the plantation in his land due to the defective low tension electric line running between H&I poles installed in his agricultural land in Aijiri Village. The say of the complainant is that he has borrowed a sum of Rs. 12,00,000 from the Syndicate Bank and Rs. 50,000 from other sources and raised coconut, rubber, pepper, cashew nut and fuel wood plantation in his land, to eke out his livelihood. The electrical line laid in his land supplying electricity to his 20 HP pump set was loose and was just 7 ft. above the ground level. The contention of the complainant is that on 31.12.1994 the hanging electric lines came into contact with one another and resulted in short-circuit followed by fire due to which the entire plantation was got burnt and the complainant suffered huge loss to the extent of Rs. 9.00 lakh in an area of 8 1/2 acres.
3. It is the case of the appellant that the damage is not caused due to short-circuit, but because of inadvertent throwing of lighted cigarettes or bidi butts by the workers of the plantation.
Findings:
4. We heard the arguments and perused the record carefully. The appellant has not produced any material to substantiate the contention that short-circuit and consequent fire was being caused due to the negligence on the part of the labourers and workers in the plantation who threw cigarette butt, etc. Against this the complainant has produced on record his repeated requests to the KPTCL to the effect that the LT line between the two poles was loose and that the wires were hanging. He further alleged that earlier also fire had occurred due to the same reason which had caused some damage and his requests in this regard were unheard and not redressed by the appellant. The respondent has also produced on record the mahazar and inspection report dated 10.1.1995 prepared by the Consumer Forum Association of Basrur which has gone to the site of the incident for the specific purpose. The Village Accountant has also produced a similar mahazar on 2.1.1995 to show the damages caused at the site of the incident. Police Panchanama was also filed. On the basis of the assessment made by the Village Accountant, the complainant had approached the Deputy Commissioner of the District claiming compensation for damages but he rejected the claim and hence this complaint has been filed before the State Commission.
5. In the affidavit filed by the appellant, Shri B. Prabhakar Pal, Executive Engineer (Electrical) K.E.B., Chikkaballapura, Kolar District has stated that the distance between the LT poles and H & I is 23 metres which is within the permissible limit as per I.E. Rules. However, later on, an intermediate pole was erected by the appellant, KPTCL, in order to improve the ground clearance in view of the hump existing between the poles. They stated that this has nothing to do with the short-circuit of lines as contended by the complainant. After having taken the stand throughout that there is no need to have a pole between the two poles of a distance of 23 metres, according to their own rules, and arguing that it has not caused short-circuit or damage, it is surprising to note that the appellant themselves erected a pole, giving some excuses. The conduct of the Board, in order to rectify the faults, in erecting a pole, proves that the grievance made by the respondent is genuine. This clearly shows that damage was caused to the complainant due to negligence of KPTCL for not having considered the grievance made by the complainant on the earlier occasion. It is further stated that the cause of fire was obviously due to the wires which were being left loose at a height of 8 ft. above his land. In view of the above discussion, we find that there is deficiency of service by the appellants and the State Commission has rightly allowed the complaint.
6. With regard to quantum of compensation, the State Commission has awarded compensation at a low rate. The petitioner has claimed that he had spent Rs. 32.00 lakh for plantation and claimed Rs. 12.00 lakh as compensation. With regard to the interest it has been pointed out by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the complainant has borrowed loan from the Syndicate Bank and he was required to pay the same with interest @ 15% p.a. At present the claim is for Rs. 35.00 lakh from the complainant for which a decree has been obtained from the Debts Recovery Tribunal. Hence the order passed by the State Commission does not call for any interference. Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.