State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Maharashtra State Electricity ... vs Chandrakant Tyappa Lendave on 28 August, 2018
1 (A/16/243)
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
FIRST APPEAL NO.FA/16/243
(Arisen out of Judgment and order dated 17/03/2015 passed by Ld. Solapur
District Forum in complaint No.185 of 2014)
Maharashtra State Electricity
Distribution Co.Ltd.,
Sub Division Office
Mangalvedha, Dist.Solapur. Appellant(s)
versus
Shri.Chandrakant Tyappa Lendave
R/o-Phatewadi,
Tal.Mangalvedha, Dist.Solapur. Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
Hon'ble Dr.S.K.Kakade, Member
PRESENT:
For the Appellant(s): Advocate Shri.S.S.Jinsiwale
For the Respondent(s): In person
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.P.Bhangale, President
[1] By this appeal appellant has questioned validity and legality of the impugned Judgment and Award dated 17/03/2015 in consumer complaint No.185 of 2014 passed by the Ld.Solapur District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum whereby the Award was passed in the sum of Rs.1,47,000/- for damages caused to the sugarcane crop due to the fire and Rs.15,000/- for damages caused on account of burnt Drip Irrigation Set, litigation costs in the sum of Rs.1,000/- and compensation for mental harassment and anguish in the sum of Rs.5,000/- was also awarded. [2] Brief facts are that respondent farmer is owner of agricultural land Gat No.206, 0.44 R irrigated land situated at Mauje Fatewadi, Tal. Mangalwedha, District Solapur. The farmer is consumer in respect of 2 (A/16/243) electricity meter connection as consumer No.342380311575 and there is no dispute regarding payment of bills to the appellant by respondent farmer from time to time. He had taken electric connection for irrigating his land since 2012. On or about 29/05/2013 at about 3.45 p.m. when it was noon time sugarcane crop caught fire on account of short circuit in electric wires in the DP maintained by the appellant (original opponent). Due to sparks created on account of break in wires standing sugarcane crop in the area of 0.40 R in the land belonging to the respondent farmer caught fire. Since fire was uncontrolled damage was caused to the standing sugarcane crop as also to the set of Drip Irrigation, as the same were burnt. Panchanama was drawn by Mangalwedha Police station regarding spot as also Talathi of Homnal and Assistant Agricultural Office. Electrical Inspector also visited the spot and reported to the appellant. In the result, therefore, about 60 tones sugarcane crop was burnt on account of fire which according to the respondent caused damage @Rs.2450/- per ton. Accordingly, Award was passed on the ground that due to sparks created on account of break of fire and in the result fire incident occurred resulting in damage to the crop as well as irrigation set of the farmer. Since Ld.Forum below considered various copies of documents such as Panchanama by Asst.Agricultrual Officer as also Certificate and because the wires were not maintained in good condition, considering the report from Electrical Inspector regarding the fire incident, Ld.Forum below came to conclusion that the opponent was negligent and caused deficiency in service after making reference to the ruling of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. v/s. Mony Thomas, 2(2006) CPJ 245 (NC) considering the identical case of fire caused as a result of sparks created on account of wires coming in contact with each other.
[3] Another ruling of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 'The Asst.Executive Engineer, Hubli versus Shri.Nilkanth Sidhgauda Patil, 1986-2004 Consumer 7145 (NS) was also taken into 3 (A/16/243) consideration. Thus, on the ground that it is the liability of the opponent to maintain the electric connection and wires in good condition to prevent such incident, Ld.Forum below proceeded to pass the Award as mentioned above. [4] Ld.Advocate for the appellant invited our attention to the ruling of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Shankar Sitaram Jadhav versus Maharashtra State Electricity Board, reported in 1994 STPL (CL) 582 NC in which the facts were stated in respect of incident of electrocution by live wires and in the result there was unfortunate death of son of complainant in that case due to drowning on public road. In that case, on the night of 2nd and 3rd October there was heavy rain accompanied by strong winds as a result of which some branch of a tree on the roadside broke and fell on an overhead transmission wire which snapped and fell down on the road. The deceased while trying to help someone else who had touched the live electric line got electrocuted. His death was thus, due to the accident on the public road, and it had no relation to any deficiency in the supply of electricity to the petitioner who was a consumer in relation to the supply of electricity to his residence. [5] In our view, therefore, the facts of Shankar Sitaram Jadhav case are otherwise and in the facts and circumstances of the case the Hon'ble National Commission held that there was no question of any deficiency in service and the remedy will lie in Civil Court in such case. [6] Another ruling which is pointed out to us is ruling of Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, Revision Petition no.482 of 1996, in case of Haryana State Electricity Board versus Ganga Devi reported in 1997 CCJ 1541. In that Revision Petition cow was electrocuted and complainant was seeking compensation for death of cow. In the facts and circumstances it was held that there was consumer dispute as such when cow was killed as a result of electrocution of cow who came in contact with live wire.
[7] Finally reliance is placed on the Award passed by this Commission in First Appeal No.227 of 2007 in case of Maharashtra State Electricity 4 (A/16/243) Distribution Co.Ltd. v/s. Babulal Kuberchand Gandhi. In that case, it is observed in para 24 of the Judgment as follows-
"(24) In short, we find that the relationship of a person as consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, in electric supply case, Board commences with Board or supplier from the point of the meter and lines, the point of consumption the main, distributing main and the transmission lines are an infrastructure lines of the Opponents so as to bring supply of the energy to the premises of the consumer. However, the said energy enters into the premises of the Consumer through the service line brought upto the meter and cut-outs. The service line is always from the pole close to the premises of the consumer and the premises of the consumer. The service line may be overhead and may be underground. If it is under-
ground there is no question of any service line. If it is overhead line it is always insulated and kept with a material so as to avoid shock or damages to the life of any human being. It -23- is not the case of the present Complainant that anything has happened after the meter and at the time of consumption of energy through the line which can be considered as any consumer line for which the consumer pays on such line no accident has taken place. The accident admittedly has taken place as a result of the loose wires, either of a main and/or of a distributing main and therefore there should be consistent remedies for those persons who suffered an accident at this place. Thus, we find that the present dispute is not a consumer dispute. Therefore, even though we have recorded a finding that complainant is entitled for the damages and that the damages have taken place due to short circuit and that compensation is calculated, yet according to us it is not a case which Consumer Forum 5 (A/16/243) shall deal. We find that there is no relationship of a "consumer" and the "service provider" between complainant and opponent. Dispute is not a consumer dispute."
[8] The State Commission had also considered the possibility of the underground service as well as overhead lines which always are insulated and covered with material so as to avoid shock or damage to the life of any human being. In the facts and circumstances before the State Commission, State Commission found that there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and opponent in that case. Therefore, the State Commission was pleased to dismiss the complaint. The facts before the State Commission were indicative of dispute in which the agriculturist residing in joint family had taken about nine agricultural connections for supply of energy to about 100 acres of land and in the facts and circumstances of that case Ld.Forum had found that it was summer season and therefore mulching was carried out in the said garden and due to winds wires had touched each other as a result of which there was short circuit, sparking of fire causing damage to the garden in which 200 trees of Sapota were burnt. The question in that case was whether the fire had taken place as a result of short circuit or not and considering the incident of burnt trees in the facts and circumstances of that case, State Commission found that distance between the two electric poles at the relevant place of incident was more than prescribed specifications and therefore the case of short circuit as a result of heavy winds was believed. Thus, after considering the definition of term 'consumer', 'Distribution Main', 'Electric Supply Line', State Commission came to conclusion that there was no relationship between the complainant and the Electricity Board as that of 'consumer' and 'service provider'. That case did not attracted any consumer dispute.
[9] All these rulings were decided in different facts and circumstances of the case which were crucial for decision. In the present case, however, we 6 (A/16/243) find that Ld.Forum below have already relied upon identical cases in which crops were burnt on account of sparking which arose due to wires coming in contact with each other and mainly because the incident of fire had occurred at the agricultural land with supply of power on account of the fact that the complainant/consumer as farmer used to pay bills of electricity from time to time to service provider company. It is found that the opponent was negligent and careless to maintain the electric wires in properly maintained condition. Crucial facts of Panchanama, certificate from the Agricultural Officer were considered to hold that it was as "consumer dispute" and incident had occurred on account of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opponent. We, therefore, in the facts and circumstances which are brought to our notice by the appellant as well as respondent famer, find that the complaint was basically in respect of electricity supply connection provided to the complainant farmer who is owner of Gat No.206, 0.44 R irrigated land situated at Mauje Fatewadi, Tal. Mangalwedha, District Solapur and in-fact was used to pay bills as consumer of opponent in respect of electricity meter connection No.342380311575 paying bills regularly. It is under these circumstances since DP was ill-maintained from which sparkings arose on account of break in the wires causing sparkings in the field on which standing crop of sugarcane was standing there. In our view, it was definitely a consumer dispute in the facts and circumstances of the case as farmer was paying the bills regularly and it was the duty and obligation of the appellant to maintain the supply lines in good and proper condition to prevent such incident of fire to the crops in the agricultural land.
[10] It is argued on behalf of the appellant that there was certificate issued by the Agricultural Officer from Andhalgaon, Tal.Mangalwedha, Dist. Solapur, dated 29/08/2013 which clearly indicate that sugarcane to the extent of Rs.1,20,000/- only and Drip Irrigation Lateral was damaged to the 7 (A/16/243) extent of Rs.20,000/- approximately. That being so, it is submitted that the Award is excessive and could have been limited accordingly.
[11] According to the respondent the Award was passed on account of the prevailing rate of the per ton of sugarcane crop at that time. Be that as it may, the Certificate issued by the Agricultural Circle Officer concerned could not be ignored so as to pass just and proper Award in favour of the farmer/respondent. We therefore modify the Award by limiting it to sum of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand only) in respect of fire caused to the standing sugarcane crop. However, we maintain the damage awarded for burnt Drip Irrigation System as it would be necessary for the farmer to use the amount awarded to set up new Drip Irrigation System which is necessary for better cultivation of the irrigated land. Thus, we partly allow the appeal by modifying impugned Award as under-
ORDER 1] Appeal is partly allowed by modifying impugned Award. 2] Appellant(opponent) shall pay sum of Rs.1,20,000/-
(Rupees One Lakh Twenty Thousand only) towards damage caused on account of burnt sugarcane crop and sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) as already awarded for burnt Drip Irrigation Set to the respondent and rest of the impugned Award is confirmed as it is.
3] We dispose of the appeal with no order as to costs since respondent argued in person.
4] Since Ld.Advocate appearing for appellant submitted that amount is already deposited with the Ld.District Forum. The amount deposited shall be paid to the respondent and balance, if any, shall be refunded to the opponent / appellant.
8 (A/16/243) Certified copy of this order be supplied to both the parties. Pronounced on 28th August, 2018.
[JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE] PRESIDENT [Dr.S.K.KAKADE] MEMBER rsc