Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Power Transmission vs Rangaswamy Gounder on 27 September, 2019
Author: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
Bench: H.B.Prabhakara Sastry
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY
R.F.A.No.646 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
1. Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Ltd.,
Kempegowda Road,
Cauvery Bhavan,
Bangalore, represented by its
General Manager (Adm & HRD).
2. Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply
Corporation Ltd.,
L.J. Avenue Commercial Complex,
New Kantharaja Urs Road,
Saraswathipuram,
Mysore, represented by its
General Manager.
3. The Superintending Engineer (Elec.,),
Circle Office
Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply
Corporation ltd.,
Harsha Road,
Mysore.
4. The Executive Engineer (Elec.)
Divisional Office
CHESCOM,
Chamarajanagar.
R.F.A.No.646/2012
2
5. The Asst. Executive Engineer (Elec.),
CHESCOM Ltd.,
Sub-Divisional Office,
Gundlupet,
Chamarajanagar District.
...Appellants
(By Sri.N. Krishnananda Gupta, Advocate)
AND:
Rangaswamy Gounder,
Son of Sri. Chenniyappa Gounder,
Aged about 65 years,
Residing at
Bheemanabeedu village,
Hangala Hobli,
Gundlupet Taluk,
Chamarajanagar District.
...Respondent
(By Sri. R.C. Nagaraj, Advocate)
***
This Regular First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, against the judgment
and decree dated:30-01-2012 passed in O.S.No.9/2009 on
the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Chamarajanagar, partly decreeing the suit of
the plaintiff.
This Regular First Appeal coming on for Hearing this
day, the Court delivered the following:
R.F.A.No.646/2012
3
JUDGMENT
This is a defendants' appeal. The present respondent as a plaintiff had instituted a suit against the present appellants arraigning them as defendants in O.S.No.9/2009 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamarajanagar (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Trial Court") seeking compensation of a sum of `19,63,000/- along with interest there upon at the rate of `12% per annum from the defendants.
2. The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that, the plaintiff being an agriculturist was cultivating the land measuring 04 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.107 and another land measuring 01 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.108 in Bheemanabeedu village, Gundlupet Taluk on 'Vaara' R.F.A.No.646/2012 4 (a kind of lease where a cultivator has to share the crop with the true owner of the land from whom he has taken the land on lease) basis from one Sri.B. Siddaiah the actual owner of the land. An Electrical line was running in the middle of the said land. A house measuring 17 Ankanas (similar to a square) was also put up in the said land.
It was the plaintiff's case that, he had grown sugarcane crop in the entire land. In March 2008, the sugar cane crop were fully grown and due for harvesting. It was at that time on 09-03-2008 at about 12:00 A.M., due to electrocution from the electrical line that was passing above the sugarcane crop in the field, the entire crop caught fire and the entire crop grown on the land was completely burnt. The said fire also spread to the house that was put up R.F.A.No.646/2012 5 in the said land and the entire house including all the articles, utensils, jewels, cash, TVS motor cycle, almirahs, generator and submersible pump-sets all got burnt totally. Due to the said fire, the plaintiff incurred total loss of a sum of `16,13,000/-.
It was further the case of the plaintiff that, since the said fire incident had taken place due to electrocution which in turn was caused at the negligence of the defendants - Electricity Supply Corporation which had failed to attend to the maintenance of the electrical lines which electrical lines were sagging, as such, due to the wind coming in contact with each other had resulted into fire that was caught by the sugar cane crop and causing the damage. The plaintiff contended that despite his complaints to the Police and also the defendants - R.F.A.No.646/2012 6 Electricity Supply Corporation, no action was taken in that regard. With this, he has claimed compensation of a sum of `19,63,000/- with interest at the rate of `12% per annum from the defendants.
3. In response to the summons served upon them, the defendants appeared through their counsel. The defendant No.4 - Executive Engineer (Elec.), Divisional officer - CHESCOM, Chamarajanagar filed his Written Statement which was adopted by the remaining defendants by filing a memo in that regard.
4. The said defendant No.4 in his Written Statement has denied the plaint averments, more particularly, the statement that the plaintiff was cultivating the land taking the same on 'vaara' basis from one Sri. B. Siddaiah and that he had grown sugarcane crop. He also denied that the incident of R.F.A.No.646/2012 7 fire was due to the alleged negligent act on the part of the defendants. It further denied the plaintiff sustaining any damages, much less, all those articles and to the extent as stated by the plaintiff in his plaint. The defendants categorically denied that they are in any way liable to the plaintiff in any manner. They further denied that, at no point of time, the electrical lines which had passed through the land in question were sagging or were loose which could able to come in contact with one another.
5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:-
[1] Whether the plaintiff proves that he was cultivating the land bearing Sy.No.107 and 108 on vaara basis from one B. Siddaiah?R.F.A.No.646/2012 8
[2] Does the plaintiff prove that the fire incident was caused by Electrocution only?
[3] Does the plaintiff prove the damage caused by the Electrocution only?
[4] Does the plaintiff prove that Electrocution was caused at the negligence of the defendants?
[5] Does the defendants prove that, suit is not maintainable forl non-joinder of necessary parties?
[6] Does the plaintiff entitled to any reliefs?
[7] What decree or order?"
In support of the suit, the plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and got examined three witnesses from PW-2 to PW-4. Among these four witnesses, as could be seen from the Lower Court records, more particularly, the order sheet maintained by the Trial R.F.A.No.646/2012 9 Court, PW-3 - Sri. B. Siddaiah remained absent, as such, he did not appear for his cross-examination. On the other hand, PW-4 - Kumaraswamy was not cross- examined from the defendants' side. From the plaintiff's side Exs.P-1 to P-26 were produced and got marked. On behalf of defendant No.5 - Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec.),CHESCOM Ltd. Sub- Divisional office, Gundlupet, Chamarajanagar District, by name Mr. Ramaswamy was examined as DW-1. On the side of the defendants, a Junior Engineer in the Department by name Sri. Noor Ahmed was examined as DW-2 and documents from Exs.D-1 to D-5 were produced and got marked.
6. After hearing both side, the Trial Court by its impugned judgment and decree dated 30-01-2012 answered issues No.1 to 4 in the affirmative, issue R.F.A.No.646/2012 10 No.5 in the negative and issue No. 6 partly in the affirmative and decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the costs of the suit and the compensation to the tune of `10,32,000/- along with interest at the rate of `6% per annum from the date of incident, i.e 09-03-2008. It is against the said judgment and decree, the defendants have preferred this appeal.
7. The Lower Court records were called for and the same are placed before this Court.
8. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for appellants/defendants, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff and perused the material placed before this Court including the memorandum of appeal and the impugned judgment.
R.F.A.No.646/201211
9. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be henceforth referred to with the ranks they were holding before the Trial Court respectively.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants/ defendants in his arguments mainly canvassed three points.
Firstly, he submitted that the plaintiff has failed to prove that there was any negligence on the part of the defendants.
Secondly, the plaintiff has not proved that he was a lessee of the land in which the fire incident is said to have taken place.
Lastly, the plaintiff has failed to prove the quantum of loss alleged to have been suffered by him.
Therefore, learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court without properly appreciating the materials R.F.A.No.646/2012 12 placed before it has awarded compensation to the plaintiff which does not sustain in the eye of law.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff in his arguments submitted that the evidence of plaintiff's witnesses to the effect that the plaintiff was cultivating the land on lease and the incident of electrocution have not been categorically and specifically denied by the defendants, as such, the Trial Court has rightly held that the incident alleged had occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the defendants.
He further submitted that at the earliest point of time, the plaintiff has computed the loss/damages suffered by him and the same has been reflected in more than one document including the panchanama. The Trial Court has taken stock of the evidence as well the circumstance of the case and has appropriately R.F.A.No.646/2012 13 awarded the compensation which is just and as such, the same does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
12. In the light of the above, the points that arise for my consideration in this appeal are:-
1) Whether the plaintiff has proved that he was cultivating the land bearing Survey Nos.107 and 108 of Bheemanabeedu village taking the said land on 'vaara' basis (crop-
sharing lease basis) from one B. Siddaiah?
2) Whether the plaintiff has proved that the fire incident that has taken place on 09-03-2008 was due to electrocution which has occurred at the negligence of the defendants?
3) Whether the quantum of damages awarded by the Trial Court is just and appropriate?
R.F.A.No.646/201214
4) Whether the judgment and decree under appeal warrants any interference at the hands of this Court?
13. From a reading of the pleading, it is not in dispute that in the land bearing Survey Nos.107 and 108 of Bheemanabeedu village coming within the jurisdiction of the defendants - Electricity Supply Corporations, an incident of fire had taken place on 09-03-2008 at about 12:00 in the afternoon. The defendants in their Written Statement have not denied the incident but have only contended that the said incident was not at any negligence on the part of the defendants, more particularly, in the alleged manner of electrocution. Further it is also not in dispute that in the said fire mishap, the plaintiff sustained damages/loss in the form of destruction of the crops grown by him and also the damage caused to the R.F.A.No.646/2012 15 articles said to have been stored inside and outside the house put up in the said land. However the main dispute is with respect to the alleged negligence on the part of the defendants and the quantum of damages awarded by the Trial Court.
14. The plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 who in his Examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit evidence has reiterated the contentions taken up by him in his plaint. He has stated that he was cultivating the land in Sy.Nos.107 and 108 totally measuring six acres on crop sharing (vaara) basis having taken the same from one Sri.B. Siddaiah. He has also stated that in March 2008, he had grown sugar cane crop in the entire land which had ripened for harvesting. It was at that moment on 09-03-2008, in the afternoon, due to the Electrical R.F.A.No.646/2012 16 line wires which were passing through the said land coming in contact with each other since they were sagging and loose, resulted in emanating sparks, which in turn resulted in the entire sugar cane crop catching fire. Due to the said fire mishap, the entire sugar cane crop in the whole field got burnt. The said fire also extended to the house that was put up in the very same field and the entire house including the belonging in the house were all burnt in the fire mishap.
The witness has also stated that due to the said fire incident, he incurred loss/damages to the crops and also cash and other articles, all put together valued at a sum of `16,13,000/-.
PW-1 has further stated that in connection with the sagging and hanging of the electrical lines, several R.F.A.No.646/2012 17 oral complaints were given to the defendant authorities at various points of time, still, they had not taken any measures to set them right. As such, the fire incident that has taken place is solely due to the negligence on the part of the defendants. Stating that he had lodged a Police complaint with respect to the incident and also complained with the defendants - Electricity Supply Corporation, and also stating that he had suffered huge loss in the fire incident, the witness got marked ten photographs about the alleged fire mishap at Exs.P-1 to P-10 with negatives; and an NCR endorsement issued by the Gundlupet Police at Ex.P-11; two copies of his complaints addressed to the Tahsildar and the Electricity Supply Corporation at Exs.P-12 and Ex.13 respectively; copy of the Mahazar said to have been drawn by the Gundlupet Police in the spot of the incident at Ex.P-14; a R.F.A.No.646/2012 18 Certificate issued by the fire authorities at Ex.P-15; a copy of the legal notice said to have been issued on his behalf to the defendants - Electricity Supply Corporation at Ex.P-16; postal acknowledgement showing the service of legal notice upon the addressee at Ex.P-17 and P-18; two RTC extracts at Exs.P-19 and P-20.
The witness was subjected to a detailed cross- examination wherein he adhered to his original version.
15. One Sri. Chennabasava Shetty who claims to be the owner-cum-cultivator of the adjoining land was examined as PW-2. The said witness apart from stating that the plaintiff was cultivating the land in which land the electrical lines that passed through were sagging and the wires were very loose, has R.F.A.No.646/2012 19 stated that apart from the plaintiff, he also had given several oral complaints to the Electricity Supply Corporation, but they had not taken any measures in setting it right. It is because of the same, on the date of incident, due to the electrocution and short circuit, the fire mishap took place resulting in the entire sugar cane crop grown in the land of the plaintiff catching fire and the plaintiff sustaining huge loss/damages.
The witness has further stated that the said fire spread to the house of the plaintiff which was in the very same land due to which the entire house including cash, gold and other house utensils, dress materials that were in the house were all got burnt and the motor pump-sets, generator, etc. which were also kept in that house were also got burnt and the R.F.A.No.646/2012 20 said witness even in his cross-examination apart from adhering to his original version, has given some more details as to the incident.
16. Sri.B. Siddaiah (PW-3) who is said to be the owner of the said land bearing Survey Nos.107 and 108 of Bheemanabeedu village though has led his Examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit evidence, but he has remained absent. As such, he did not tender himself for cross- examination. However, a perusal of his affidavit evidence goes to show that he has stated that he is the owner of the land in question and has given the said land on crop sharing basis to the plaintiff since twenty years. Even on the date of the incident also, it was the plaintiff who was cultivating the land by growing sugar cane crop in the entire land.
R.F.A.No.646/201221
The said witness also has stated that the electrical lines that were passing through in the said land were sagging and they were very loose. It is because of the said loose and hanging electrical lines coming in contact with each other, sparks emanated due to which, the entire sugarcane crop caught fire and was destructed. In his support, he produced and got marked two RTCs as Exs.P-23 and P-24.
17. One Sri. Kumaraswamy, son of the plaintiff got himself examined as PW-4 who in his Examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit evidence apart from reiterating about the incident as to what his father (PW-1) had stated, has also stated that he is running a business as a dealer in submersible pump-sets. Because of lack of space in his shop, he had stored stock of his trade, i.e. ten pump-sets in R.F.A.No.646/2012 22 front of his house in the agricultural land which all caught fire in the incident and totally burnt.
This witness also has stated that the said incident of fire is solely due to the negligence of the defendants - Electricity Supply Corporation in not attending to the proper maintenance of the electrical lines that were passing through in their field. It is because of the loose and sagging electrical wires, the fire had taken place. A VAT Registration Certificate as Ex.P-25 and an invoice about the purchase of few motor pump-sets for the shop said to have been run by PW-4, as Ex.P-26 were marked.
18. For the reasons best known to them, the defendants did not cross-examine PW-4. As such, the evidence given by PW-4 has remained un-denied. R.F.A.No.646/2012 23
19. One Sri. Ramaswamy who is said to be the Assistant Executive Engineer (Elec.) of defendant - Electricity Supply Corporation was examined as DW-1. The said witness in his examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit evidence has reiterated the contentions taken up by the defendants in their Written Statement. He was subjected to a detailed cross-examination wherein two documents from plaintiff's side were confronted to the witness and they were marked as Exs.P-21 and P-22.
20. One Sri.Noor Ahmed said to be a Junior Engineer with defendant No.5 was examined as DW-2. The said witness in his examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit evidence though has stated that a fire incident had taken place in the land of the suit in question, however, he specifically denied that it was R.F.A.No.646/2012 24 due to the alleged negligence on the part of the defendants - Electricity Supply Corporation. He has stated that after knowing about the incident of fire through some one on 10-03-2008, he visited the spot on 11-03-2008 and verified the spot. He stated that he saw no sagging of any electrical line or loosening of any electrical line, on the other hand, he has stated that he being in-charge of the maintenance of electrical lines in that area, he with the help of lineman and other workers has been maintaining the electrical lines properly and as such, they were in good condition without any sagging or loosening of the wires.
He stated that through a local enquiry, he also came to know that welding and other incidental activities were being carried on by the son of the plaintiff in the said house which they had erected in R.F.A.No.646/2012 25 the place. The machineries pertaining to the same were also found in the spot. He further stated that for the said purpose and also to run the bore-well pumps, an illegal electrical connection had been drawn by them. He suspected that the reason for the fire incident must have been the electrical spark which might have emanated from the generator which the plaintiff had maintained in his house in the land. He further stated that with respect to the alleged incident, no complaint was filed by the plaintiff. The proper procedure that is required to be followed has not been followed by the plaintiff. He specifically and categorically denied that the fire mishap was due to any short circuit of the electrical lines.
In his cross-examination from the defendants' side, he adhered to his original version. The five R.F.A.No.646/2012 26 documents in the form of Electrical Inspectors report and a Sugar Mills letter and invoices were produced by the defendants as Exhibits D-1 to D-5 to show that in case of any electrical mishap, a report is required to be obtained and also about the sugar cane supply to a sugar factory - Bannari Amman Sugars Limited.
21. As already observed above, it is not in dispute that on 09-03-2008 in the afternoon at about 12'0 clock, the fire mishap took place in the land bearing Survey Nos.107 and 108 of Bheemanabeedu village of Gundlupet Taluk in which land, electrical lines installed and maintained by the defendant - Electricity Supply Corporation were passing through. According to plaintiff, the said land was being cultivated by him wherein he had grown sugarcane crop. It is also the case of the plaintiff (PW-1) that R.F.A.No.646/2012 27 the electrical mishap that had taken place was solely due to the negligence on the part of the defendant - Electricity Supply Corporation who had failed to maintain electrical lines in tact, as such, due to the sagging and loosening of the wires, the supply wire came in contact with each other emanating sparks, the fire of which was caught by the sugarcane crop which was due for harvesting and the entire crops were burnt including a house and other articles in the house. In his evidence, PW-1 has given some more details as to what was the crop sharing agreement between him and the land owner. He has stated that after deducting the expenses, he was paying a sum of `8,000/- to the owner. He has admitted that it was a kind of lease transaction that was between them. He has further stated that since about 20 years, he was in possession R.F.A.No.646/2012 28 of the said land under the said arrangement with the landlord.
22. Except eliciting further details regarding the plaintiff being in possession and cultivation of the said land under the crop sharing basis, no denial suggestions about PW-1 being in cultivation of the said land were made in his cross-examination. On the other hand, a suggestion was made to the witness to the effect that in the very same land, the plaintiff had put up a thatched house. The defendants have admitted that the plaintiff was in possession of the land as well residing there by putting up a house. In the very same cross-examination of PW-1, the defendants drew the witness's attention to Exs.P-19 and P-20 and stated that the name of the cultivator is shown therein as one Sri. B. Siddaiah. The witness R.F.A.No.646/2012 29 has admitted the same as true. No doubt even according to PW-1, the said B. Siddaiah is the true owner of the land. However, it is the case of the plaintiff that it is from the said Siddaiah that he had taken the land on 'vaara' basis (sharing of crop) and cultivating it.
23. The evidence of PW-2 comes in support of PW-1 on the aspect of PW-1 cultivating the land. The said witness has stated that he is the owner of the adjoining land to the land in the suit and the said land in the suit was under cultivation of the plaintiff who had grown sugar cane crop as on the date of the incident. The said statement of PW-2 has not been specifically denied in his cross-examination. On the other hand, some more details were elicited in the cross-examination which further supports the case of R.F.A.No.646/2012 30 the plaintiff that it was the plaintiff who was cultivating the land in the suit.
Added to the same, the evidence of PW-4 that it was his father who was cultivating the land in which the fire incident took place on 09-03-2008 has also not been denied from the defendants' side. All these evidences very clearly go to show that it was the plaintiff who was cultivating the subject land of the suit as on the date of the incident of fire which was on 09-03-2008 .
24. The incident of fire which took place in the afternoon of 09-03-2008 though not disputed from the defendants' side, but they have categorically denied that the said happening of the incident was due to negligence on their part. The very contention of the plaintiff was that the electrical supply lines that were R.F.A.No.646/2012 31 passing through the land were very loose and sagging, as such, they came in contact with one another, due to which sparks emanated which resulted in the entire sugar cane crop catching fire and totally getting burnt. The plaintiff as PW-1 and PW-2 an adjoining land owner have reiterated that the electrical supply lines that were passing through there were sagging and loose and several complaints in that regard were lodged with the defendant authorities, still, they had not taken any steps to set them right. The said evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 that they had informed the defendant - Electricity Supply Corporation on several occasions about the sagging of the electrical supply lines in their field, was not denied in the cross- examination of these witnesses.
Except making a suggestion that fire was not due to electrocution, no specific denial was made in R.F.A.No.646/2012 32 the cross-examination of PW-1 that fire was not due to electrical supply line coming in contact with each other and emanating electrical sparks. On the other hand, in the cross- examination of DW-1 from the plaintiff's side suggestions were made to the witness as to how electrocution took place. It was put in the mouth of the witness that in the land in question as on the date of incident, the plaintiff had grown sugar cane crop and that the incident of fire had taken place because of the fire due to sagging electrical lines which resulted in damage to the crop grown in the field. The said suggestion was not denied as not true by the witness but the witness has only stated that he does not know, being defendant No.5 himself in whose jurisdiction and control, the maintenance of the entire electrical supply lines in that area falls. But the witness has not denied the negligence that was R.F.A.No.646/2012 33 attributed against his department, and more particularly, against defendant No.5 in his cross- examination, a suggestion was also made to the witness specifically that in case the defendant - Electricity Supply Corporation had maintained the electrical lines properly at the right time, the incident would not have happened and the incident could have been avoided for which the witness has only stated that he has got no information about it.
Thus, even for such a specific direct suggestion as to the negligence on the defendants' side also, a responsible Officer i.e. DW-1 who himself is an Assistant Executive Engineer has not denied those suggestions but only expressed his ignorance. The said evidence of DW-1 which in no way specifically denies the case of the plaintiff would diminish the value of the evidence of DW-2 who in fact is a R.F.A.No.646/2012 34 subordinate of DW-1. Admittedly DW-2 is a Junior Engineer. Since he claims to be in-charge of the maintenance of the lines in the area of the incident, he has stated that he had maintained those electrical supply lines properly and they were in-tact. Though the defendants and more particularly DW-2 could have maintained the necessary documents in that regard, showing when they had inspected the supply lines and how they have maintained the lines, but they have not produced any documents. Being an Electricity Supply Corporation, no need to say that, regarding the maintenance of the supply lines and their inspection, they are required to maintain necessary records including registers or the books. As such, several documents showing the maintenance of the supply lines would be easily available with them. Despite the R.F.A.No.646/2012 35 same they have not produced any such document though they were available with them.
25. The plaintiff has also produced a copy of the complaint said to have been lodged by him with the Police on 09-03-2008 at Ex.P-11 and a similar complaint said to have been lodged by him with the defendants at Ex.P-13. The complaint with the defendant - Electricity Supply Corporation is also shown to be dated 09-03-2008. In both the places, the complainant has alleged that the incident of fire has taken place due to short circuit of the electrical lines that were passing through in his land. The Police have acknowledged the said complaint by issuing an endorsement as per Ex.P-11. Thereafter, on the very same day, they are shown to have visited the spot and conducted a mahazar which is at Ex.P-14. In the R.F.A.No.646/2012 36 said mahazar, it is shown that the panchas have opined that the cause for fire mishap was due to electrocution because of the electrical supply lines that were passing through in the said land.
26. The Certificate issued by the Fire Department which is at Ex.P-15 also corroborates the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 that a fire mishap had taken place in the land of the plaintiff on 09-03-2008 and that the said fire was extinguished by the Fire Brigade personnel by rushing to the spot.
27. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendants in his argument vehemently submitted that as per Section 161 of Electricity Act, 2003, no Electrical Inspector's report was secured, as such, it cannot be concluded that any fire mishap had taken place due to electrocution. The said R.F.A.No.646/2012 37 argument is not acceptable for the reason that, despite lodging of the complaint, more particularly, as per Ex.P-13, the defendant - Electricity Supply Corporation has not taken any steps in getting a report by the Electrical Inspector. Since the Electrical Inspector would be from the defendants' side, unless the defendants instruct an Electrical Inspector to visit the spot and to submit his report, the plaintiff cannot get such a report. It was required of the defendants to secure a report by the Electrical Inspector, at least after it received the complaint as per Ex.P-13.
28. Even according to the defendants, it has come out in the evidence of DW-2 - the Junior Engineer that, on the very next day, i.e. on 10-03-2008 itself, DW-2 came to know about the fire R.F.A.No.646/2012 38 mishap in the field of the plaintiff. As a jurisdictional Junior Engineer who was in charge of the maintenance of the supply lines in the area, it was his duty to bring the same to the notice of his higher-ups and also to ensure that an appropriate action is taken in the matter. At least when their own Departmental responsible Officer came to know about the incident, then the defendant - Electricity Supply Corporation could have sent an Electrical Inspector and got a report from him. The defendants did not do any of these things. As admitted by DW-1 in his cross- examination, which was just twenty days prior to his evidence, he visited the spot. This clearly goes to show that the defendants have not only not taken appropriate action after receiving several oral complaints about the sagging and loosening of the supply lines in the field, but also they remained R.F.A.No.646/2012 39 inactive even after they coming to know about the incident of fire in the land of the plaintiff.
29. As such, the evidence of PW-1 which is further corroborated by the evidence of PW-2 and which again gains support from the answers given by DW-1 in his cross-examination would clearly go to show that the incident of fire though had taken place on 09-03-2008 in the spot was absolutely due to the short circuit or electrocution of the sagging electrical supply lines that had passed through the land under cultivation of the plaintiff in Survey Nos.107 and 108 of Bheemanabeedu village.
30. In the said fire incident according to the plaintiff, apart from the entire crop of sugar cane that was grown in the field getting burnt, even the house that was built in the land also caught fire and the R.F.A.No.646/2012 40 entire house including all the articles, cloths, gold, cash, pump-sets, almirahs were also burnt. The plaintiff has quantified the said loss caused to him to a sum of `16,13,000/- in his evidence and has claimed the same from the defendants.
31. In his very complaints, at Exs.P-12 and P- 13, the plaintiff has given the details as to what are all the damages that have occurred due to the fire mishap. Apart from the loss/damages to the grown-up crop of sugarcane in the entire six acres of land, he has also given the details of the articles that were burnt in the fire mishap in his plaint. He has enlisted not less than fourteen items said to have been burnt in the incident. He has stated that six acres of sugar cane crop, approximately valued at `3.00 lakhs, a thatched house valued about `2.00 lakh, submersible pumpsets ten in R.F.A.No.646/2012 41 numbers worth `2,50,000/-, a Television worth `20,000/-, silk sarees and other cloths worth about `1,00,000/-, etc., totally amounting to `16,13,000/- were all got burnt. In addition to the above, he has also claimed a sum of `2,00,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of `1.50 lakh towards inconvenience caused due to the fire incident. All these put together he has claimed a sum of `19,63,000/- as damages and compensation from the defendants.
32. PW-1 in his evidence about the damages sustained by him and also the compensation for which he is entitled, has reiterated the contentions taken up by him in his plaint. Even in the complaints, at the earliest point of time, i.e. at Exs.P-12 and P-13 he has reiterated and quantified all the damages for which he is entitled to. The Fire Department Certificate at R.F.A.No.646/2012 42 Ex.P-15 also goes to show that the sugar cane crop that was grown in six acres of land and a thatched house measuring 60' x 40' including the articles in the house were all burnt in the fire. The Fire Department Certificate further goes to say that in the said house apart from domestic utility articles, ornaments, a television, two Godrej almirahs, land records, seven motor pump-sets, generator grinders, wooden articles and a TVS XL motor cycle were all got burnt. The said document has not been specifically denied in the cross-examination of any of the plaintiff's witnesses.
33. Admittedly the legal notice sent to the defendants a copy of which is at ExP-16 has also not been responded to by the defendants. Even in the said legal notice, the plaintiff apart from narrating about R.F.A.No.646/2012 43 the incident has also stated as to what are all the articles that were damaged or burnt in the incident. Even the evidence of PW-2 also goes to show that in the said fire incident, apart from sugar cane crop grown in the field, the entire house including cash, gold, domestic utility articles which were kept in the house caught fire and all of them got burnt. Even in his cross-examination also, specific denial with respect to the loss or damages caused to the plaintiff was not denied.
34. The witness (PW-4) has further stated that in the house the turmeric crop was also stored in fifty bags which also got burnt. Added to this, the entire evidence of PW-4 having remained un-denied by the defendants since they did not cross-examine the said witness, the same also goes to the support of the R.F.A.No.646/2012 44 plaintiff and which shows that due to the said fire incident, the grown up crops and the goods as stated by the plaintiff were all got burnt. The witness has also stated that he being a dealer in the submersible pump-sets had kept ten pump-sets in front of his house in the field which were also got burnt. It is in that regard he has produced his Value Added Tax (VAT) Registration Certificate to show that he was a registered businessman under the Taxation law, in the name and style of M/s. Sri. Durga Agencies. He has also produced an invoice which shows that he had received several pump-sets worth a sum of `1,89,280/- for their sale by him. All these documents have remained un-denied and undisputed. Thus it goes to show that apart from the domestic utility articles even the goods of the business R.F.A.No.646/2012 45 pertaining to the son of the plaintiff were also got burnt in the fire incident.
35. The Trial Court has considered all these aspects in their proper perspective and item-wise, it has quantified the damages commencing from the value of the sugarcane crops up to the loss of the submersible pumps and their value after proper analysis and awarded the damages and compensation for which the plaintiff is entitled to under each of the heads. The Trial Court has not accepted or admitted the quantification of the loss as made by the plaintiff, but it has reduced the same with cogent reasons and arrived at just and reasonable damages with respect to the loss sustained by the plaintiff due to the damages caused to the goods and also with respect to the compensation for which the plaintiff is entitled to R.F.A.No.646/2012 46 towards the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff's family.
36. I do not find any reason to vary or to reduce the said quantification of the damages and the compensation arrived at by the Trial Court. Consequently since all the three aspects of the plaintiff cultivating the land where the fire incident has happened, the incident of fire also having been proved as due to negligence on the part of the defendants and also the quantification of the damages/ compensation also found to be just and reasonable, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER [i] The appeal is dismissed;R.F.A.No.646/2012 47
[ii] The judgment and decree dated 30-01-2012 passed in O.S.No.9/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chamarajanagar, is hereby confirmed;
Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court records to the concerned Trial Court, without delay.
Sd/-
JUDGE BMV*