State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Kalyan Shakarappa Ghongde, vs Maharashtra State Electricity ... on 28 September, 2011
1 F.A.No.:05,06,08/2007
Date of filing :03.01.2007
Date of order :28.09.2011
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :05 OF 2007
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 128 OF 2006
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : LATUR.
Kalyan Shakarappa Ghongde,
R/o Ujani, Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur. ...APPELLANT
(Org.Complainant )
VERSUS
1. Execution Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Co.Ltd.,
Head Office, Nilanga, Tq.Nilanga,
Dist.Latur.
2. Assistant Engineer,
O & M Division, Maharashtra State
Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.,
Ausa(Rural), Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur.
3. Junior Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Co.Ltd.,
Ausa(Rural ), Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur.
4. Electrical Inspector,
Electrical Inspection Department,
Maharashtra State Opp.Dist. & Session`s Court,
Ashok Hotel,Latur. ...RESPONDENTS
(Org.Opponents)
FIRST APPEAL NO. :06 OF 2007
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 127 OF 2006
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : LATUR.
Rameshwar Shakarappa Ghongde,
R/o Ujani, Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur. ...APPELLANT
(Org.Complainant )
VERSUS
1. Execution Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Co.Ltd.,
Head Office, Nilanga, Tq.Nilanga,
2 F.A.No.:05,06,08/2007
Dist.Latur.
2. Assistant Engineer,
O & M Division, Maharashtra State
Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.,
Ausa(Rural), Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur.
3. Junior Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Co.Ltd.,
Ausa(Rural ), Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur.
4. Electrical Inspector,
Electrical Inspection Department,
Maharashtra State Opp.Dist. & Session`s Court,
Ashok Hotel,Latur. ...RESPONDENTS
(Org.Opponents)
FIRST APPEAL NO. :08 OF 2007
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 127 OF 2006
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: LATUR.
1. The Executive Engineer,
MSEDCoLtd. O & M Division,
Nilanga.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
MSEDCo.Ltd. Sub-Dn Ausa.
3. The Junior Engineer,
MSEDCo.Ltd. Unit Office Ausa. ...APPELLANTS
(Org.Opponents)
VERSUS.
1. Rameshwar Shakarappa Ghongade,
R/o Ujni, Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur.
2. Electrical Inspector,
Near Ashok Hotel, Latur. ..RESPONDENTS
(No.1-Org.Complainant,
No.2-Org.Opp.No.4)
CORAM : Mrs.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Presiding Member.
Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
3 F.A.No.:05,06,08/2007Present : Adv.Shri.V.R.Bombade for appellants in appeal No.05/07 and 06/07, Adv.Shri.K.G.Sakhare for appellant in appeal No.08/07.
O R A L O R D E R Per Mr.K.B.Gawali, Hon`ble Member.
1. All above said 3 appeals have been originated from common judgment and order dated 27.1.2006 passed by Dist.Forum, Latur in C.C.No. 128/06 & 127/06. The brief facts of these appeals are as under.
2. That, the appellants in appeal No.05/07 & 06/07 are real brothers and are original complainants. They are resident of village Ujani, Tq.Ausa. That, both of them are farmers each having 4 hectors 15 Gunthas land from Gut No.178( C) of village Ujani, Tq.Ausa. That, both these appellants are the members of joint family. But for their convenience they have separated the land u/r and are cultivating their hissa separately. It is the case of the appellants that the appellant in appeal No.6/07 has obtained 3 H.P. electric connections on his borewell situated in the said land from present respondent No.1 to 3. Thus the appellant in appeal No.6/07 is consumer of respondent No.1 to 3 having consumer No.627200000041. That, both these appellants had planted sugarcane of the variety of 671 on 20.10.2005 in their respective land of variety of 671 for which they had purchased 34 tones of seedlings of sugarcane(Bene). That, after plantation of sugarcane they had taken all types of precaution for its proper growth.
3. It is the case of the appellants/org.complainants that on 6.3.2006 at about 1.00 O`Clock in the afternoon there was sparking in overhead electric wires, due to which dried grass and leaves of sugarcane(Hay) caught the fire and due to storm, fire spread in the 4 F.A.No.:05,06,08/2007 field. That, due to this fire the entire sugarcane on the land of both appellants admeasuring 8 acres 20 Gunths alongwith cattle shed, tin shed and agriculture implements stored inside the tin shed were burnt to the ashes which resulted into a loss of Rs.2,11,500/-. In addition fodder stored nereby, the trees of mango, coconut, teak wood etc. were also burnt. That, there was loss of sugarcane amounting to Rs.3,08,500/- to each of the appellants. The loss was calculated taking expected income of 70 tones of sugarcane per acre and thus expected 300 tones sugarcane, in either Hissas of appellant. Rate per tone was taken Rs.1200/- per tone and calculated loss of Rs.3,60,000/-. That, out of said loss by deducting there from the expenditure of Rs.51,500/- incurred for preparation of land, cultivation, plantation of sugarcane, cost of fertilizers and seedlings etc. net loss at Rs.3,08,500/- was stated to have sustained by either of them. The loss of Rs,2,11,500/- pertaining to items other than the sugarcane was in respect of appellant in appeal No.06/07. Thus the appellant in appeal No.05/07 claimed loss to his sugarcane at Rs.3,08,500/- whereas the appellant in appeal No.06/07 has claimed loss of sugarcane at Rs.3,08,500/- as well as the loss caused to tinshed, cattle shed etc. i.e. other than the sugarcane of Rs.2,11,500/- i.e. total Rs.2,11,200 + 3,08,500/- = 5,20,000/-. That, the appellant informed the incident to the Tahasil Office as well as to the appellants. Accordingly, appellants visited the spot and made spot panchanama on 8.3.2006 and registered F.I.R. bearing No.66/2006. Revenue inspector of Tahasil Office, Ausa has also visited the spot and made spot panchanama dated 8.3.2006. As per this panchanama the loss caused due to the fire is shown Rs.2,11,500/- in respect of agriculture implements, PVC pipe, sprinklers, cattle shed other than sugarcane etc. That, the appellants also informed about incident of fire to Assistant Electrical Inspector, who had enquired about the said incident of fire and submitted his report. There is letter dated 24.5.2006 issued by Assistant Electrical Inspector in which it is mentioned that due to loose overhead wires to 5 F.A.No.:05,06,08/2007 the electric poles there was sparking which resulted in the said fire. Thus both these appellants held the respondents i.e. MSEDCL responsible for their above said loss and approached to the Dist.Forum, Latur with their separate complaints.
3. Respondent appeared before the Forum and jointly submitted their written version on 21.9.2006 and resisted the claim made by appellants i.e. original complainants. It was submitted by respondent that electric line was intact and tied keeping proper distance in the phase as per norms of Board. That there was no such heavy storm and sparking of electric wire and therefore denied that said fire was due to the short circuit of the overhead wire. It was further contended that the loss calculated is also false. That, the appellants have already taken income by extracting Jaggery from sugarcane and there was no loss to the sugarcane. Thus contending that both the complaints being false and bogus be dismissed.
4. Dist.Forum after going through papers and hearing parties, partly allowed both the complaints by way of common judgment and order which is under appeal. By way of this judgment and order Dist.Forum has awarded Rs.2,454/- to either of the appellants/org.complainants towards loss of sugarcane crop and Rs.1,86,500/- to the appellant in appeal No.06/07 towards loss of cattle shed, tin shed i.e. other than loss of sugarcane. It was also directed to the respondent No.1 to 3 to pay interest on the said amount at 9% p.a.from the date of filing of complaint i.e.4.7.2006. In addition it was directed to these respondents to pay Rs.2000/- towards mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards cost of complaints to either of the appellants separately.
5. Aggrieved by said judgment and order present appeals have been filed in this Commission. Appellant in appeal No.05/06, 06/07 are the original complainants have filed their appeals for enhancement 6 F.A.No.:05,06,08/2007 of the compensation awarded by Dist.Forum. Whereas appellant in appeal No.08/07 is filed by MSEDCL who were original opponent for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order of the Dist.Forum. Since all the three appeals are directed against the common judgment and order passed by Dist.Forum and the issue involved in all the three appeals is same , we have decided to dispose all these appeals by a common judgment and order.
6. Appeal No.6/07 & 08/07 are the cross appeals. Notices were issued to the appellants as well as respondents.
Adv.Shri.V.R.Bombade appeared for appellants in appeal No.05/07 & 06/07 whereas Adv.Shri.K.G.Sakhare appeared for appellant in appeal No.08/07. We heard both the counsels at length. Learned counsel Shri.V.R.Bombade submitted that overhead electric wires from the poles were loose and were not properly maintained by respondent. Since there was heavy storm loose wire came into contact to each other which resulted into sparking and further converted into fire, which was caught by dry grass and dry leaves of the sugarcane. That, this fire further spread and there was total burning of sugarcane crop in the entire 8 acres 20Gunthas of appellants land. This fire also caused heavy loss to the agriculture implement, cattle shed,tin shed etc. This entire loss is caused due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of respondent. However Dist.Forum has failed to appreciate the amount of loss and granted meagre amount towards loss of sugarcane and hence appeal be allowed and compensation amount as claimed in the original complaint be granted to both the appellants in appeal No.05/07 & 06/07.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri.K.G.Sakhare appeared for respondent submitted that said fire was not due to the short circuit of the electric wire on the pole. He further submitted that there was no loss to the sugarcane. He also submitted that either of 7 F.A.No.:05,06,08/2007 appellant Shri.Rameshwar Ghongade in his statement recorded by Assistant Electrical Inspector himself submitted that there was sugarcane crop of two months duration only. He further referred to the statement of Shri.Ayub Sattar Shaikh resident of Ujani which was recorded by Assistant Electrical Inspector in which he has submitted that on the date of incident of fire i.e. on 6.3.2006 he had been to the land of Shri.Rameshwar Ghongade as labour for cutting the sugarcane stock(Khodwa). Thus learned counsel for respondent contended that there was no standing sugarcane crop at the time of incident of fire but only there were stocks of sugarcane which were kept for the further growth and therefore there was no loss to the sugarcane as contended by appellant. He further alleged that both the appellants had already extracted Jaggery from sugarcane and derived income from the same. In support of said contention he referred to the receipt of Jaggery sold in the market committee of Jalgaon. He further submitted that the spot panchanama drawn by the revenue and police authorities also nowhere mentions about the loss of sugarcane. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that loss to the agriculture implements and other things as claimed by appellants/org.complainants at Rs.2,11,500/- is also bogus. He therefore contended that Dist.Forum without considering these documents on record and without appreciating evidence has wrongly passed the impugned judgment and order awarding compensation to the appellants, therefore requested to quash and set aside the said judgment and order.
8. We have carefully gone through the record before us as well as oral submission made by learned counsel for the appellants. Appellants/org.complainants by way of present appeals have prayed for enhanced compensation of Rs.3,08,500/- for either of them towards damages of sugarcane crop at @ 12% p.a. interest from the date of incident alongwith amount of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complaint. The main points for our 8 F.A.No.:05,06,08/2007 consideration are that whether these appellants are entitled to receive the above said compensation and whether impugned judgment and order under appeal needs interference from our side.
9. It is revealed that the appellants/complainant`s claim regarding damage to the sugarcane crop is not supported by any cogent evidence. Only document is Assistant Electrical Inspector`s enquiry report which mentions inter alia about damage of sugarcane due to fire. But it does not give any detail of area and/or age of sugarcane crop damaged by the fire. Therefore this documents cannot be taken to support the claim of the appellant. In fact the police panchanama as well as Revenue Officer`s panchanama nowhere mentions about the loss of sugarcane crop due to fire. It is surprisingly observed from Revenue Officer`s Panchanama that at the top of the said panchanama some matter stating that "said panchanama is about loss other than sugarcane crop" is added at later date. The extract of 7/12 which is on record it is also clearly show that there was sugarcane crop cultivated in 8 acre 20 gunthas. Tahasildar letter dated 9.3.2006 does not also mention about damage of sugarcane.
10. In view of aforesaid fact and the contention of respondent that appellants/complainants have already harvested sugarcane crop and extracted there from Jaggery which was sold in the market at Jalgaon stands acceptable. There is no specific denial of the appellant in respect of this contention. Police panchanama also mentioned about existence of machine and other arrangement for preparation of Jaggery from sugarcane. The statement of the appellant Shri.Rameshwar Shankerappa Ghongde as recorded by Assistant Electrical Inspector also states that there was sugarcane crop of only two months duration. Even the statement of the labour namely Shri.Ayub Sattar Shaikh reveals that there was only stocks of sugarcane(khodwa) and not sugarcane crop.
9 F.A.No.:05,06,08/200711. All these aforesaid facts make sufficiently clear that sugarcane crop has already cut and harvested before about two months of said incident of fire. Hence there was no loss of sugarcane crop as contended by appellants/org.complainants. Therefore inference can be drawn that appellants/complainants have not come with clean hands before this Commission. Hence they are not at all entitled to receive any compensation for sugarcane crop. In view of this observation the appellants are not eligible even for the compensation damage of sugarcane crop as awarded by Dist.Forum in the form of interest i.e. Rs.2454/- to both the appellants and same need to be cancelled by modifying the order of Forum to that extent. Hence we pass the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeals bearing No. 05/07 and 06/07 are dismissed.
2. Appeal bearing No.08/07 is partly allowed.
3. Dist.Forum`s order awarding compensation of Rs.2454/- for the damage of sugarcane crop in respect of complaint No.128/06 and 127/06 is hereby quashed and set aside.
4. Rest of the order is confirmed.
5. No order as to cost.
6. Copies of the judgment be issued to both the parties.
K.B.Gawali, Mrs.Uma S.Bora Member Presiding Member Mane