State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Superintending Engineer, Msedcl, ... vs Dagdabai Baburao Dhoiphode on 12 August, 2024
1 A/72/2021
Date of filing :12.02.2021
Date of order :12.08.2024
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. : 72 OF 2021
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 215 OF 2020
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : AURANGABAD.
1. Maharashtra State Electricity Appellants no.1&2
Distribution Company Ltd,. (Adv.P.S.Mehta)
Superintending Engineer, Rural Div.
Aurangabad.
Through its Assistant Engineer,
2. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution
Company Ltd,.
Through Executive Engineer,
Jitendra Harishchandra Waghmare,
Respondent-1, Div. Aurangabad.
VERSUS
1. Sow. Dagdabai Baburao Dhoiphode, Respondents
R/o Bhalgaon, Tq.& Dist. Aurangabad. (Adv.S.M.Tawar)
2. Rameshwar Baburao Dhoiphode,
R/o Bhalgaon, Tq.& Dist. Aurangabad.
CORAM : Mr.Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
Mr.Nagesh C.Kumbre, Hon'ble Member.
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on 12/08/2024) Per Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon'ble Presiding Member.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.01.2021 passed by the District Commission, Aurangabad directing the appellants / ori. opponents in C.C. 2 A/72/2021 No. 215/2020 to pay to the respondents / ori. Complainants sum of Rs.04,08,000/- to respondent no.1/ original complainant no.1 and sum of Rs. 78,59,610/- to respondent no.2 / original complainant no.2 along with Rs. 20,000/- each to respondent no.1 and 2 for mental harassment and for the cost of the proceedings.
(For the sake of brevity appellants are hereinafter referred as 'opponents' and 'respondents' as complainants.)
2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are -
Complainants are the owners of the field Gat No. 273 situated at village Bhalgaon, Dist. Aurangabad, holding 80 R land each. Respondent no.1 planted sugarcane in her field, whereas respondent no.2 planted 400 'sweet lemon' trees (mosambi) in his field. They have taken electricity connection from the opponents for their respective field for the irrigation of their land. On 27.04.2019 at about 7.30 pm. there was a storm and because of that sparking took place in the overhanging wires between the two poles going across their fields. Resultantly, fire broke out underneath it. The entire sugarcane crop of complainant no.1 and 300 sweet lemon trees of complainant no.2 were burnt in the incident. They reported the incident to the opponents as well as to the Agriculture Officers, and Revenue and Police Officers. The panchanamas were drawn. The Electrical Inspector also gave his report on 22.05.2019. All these authorities recorded their assessment of the damage in their reports. The complainants claimed the compensation from the opponents. However, the opponents denied their claim on the ground that, the incident is not genuine. It is therefore, the complainants filed the consumer 3 A/72/2021 complaint before the District Commission in which the above impugned judgment has been passed. It is against that judgment opponents are before us in this appeal.
3. It is the defence taken by the opponents before the District Commission and also before us in this appeal that, the complainants are not their consumers. They have filed the complaint with an intention of extracting money. The 100 KV low tension line has gone through the land of the complainants for village Bhalgaon. The service wires (in the field of the complainants) was found to be in good condition. There is variance as to the damage caused to the complainants due to the incident in the panchanamas prepared by Talathi and Police. The said Panchanamas are drawn in collusion with the complainants. There is no evidence on record to show that, how many trees can be planted in the agricultural land of 80 R. The bills produced by the complainants to support their claim are fabricated. The incident taken place due to natural disaster and there is no deficiency in service caused to the complainants.
4. The District Commission on perusal of the pleadings of the parties along with their evidence and on hearing both sides drawn a conclusion that, in view of the provisions of Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to safety and Electric Supply ) Regulations, 2010 ( 'CEA Safety Rules' for short) which deals with general safety requirements and S.82 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the C.P.Act for short) which deals with the 'product liability' the opponents are liable for the 'product liability action' for their deficiency in service and passed the impugned judgment as above.
4 A/72/2021
5. It is submitted by Adv. Mehta, for the opponents that, the complainants are not the 'consumers' of the opponents, as defined under the C.P.Act and therefore, consumer complaint is not maintainable. The low tension line of 100 KV has gone through the fields of the complainants. They are given supply from 7th pole of that line. The wires of that pole found to be in good position. It is therefore, when the spark took place elsewhere, the complainants does not become the 'consumer' of the opponents. It means that, he wish to suggest us that, the complainants are not the consumers because, the alleged incident of fire not taken place from the point, from where the electricity connection is given to the complainants, for which they pay the bill, i.e. consideration of service they have taken. Thus, according to him there is no relationship between parties as consumer and service provider. He relied on the judgments of Hon'ble National Commission in case of Hariyana State Electricity Board Vs. Mohanlal Rev. Petition No. 125/1993 decided on 21 Oct. 1993 and also Hariyana State Electricity Board Vs. Smt.Gangadevi w/o Shri.Raghubirsingh Rev. Petition no. 482/1996 decided on 27.11.1996. However, Adv.Tawar of the complainants submitted that, the sugarcane and sweet lemon trees have burnt due to fire as a result of sparking in the overhanging wires gone through the field of the complainants. The Electrical Inspector in his report also held the opponents liable after his detailed inquiry. Therefore, opponents are liable for deficiency in service under the C.P.Act as a service provider.
5 A/72/2021
6. It is worth to mention here that, though the opponents in this appeal have raised a legal issue that, since the complainants are paying the bill for the consumption beyond the billing point and the incident alleged to have been taken place at a point, which are overhanging wire gone through the field of the complainants, they are not a consumer. They relied on the above judgments of the Hon'ble NCDRC to support their contention.
7. The Hon'ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in the following judgments -
1. Chandigarh H.V.P.N. Vs. Bhagram I (2007) CPJ 51(NC).
2. Asst. Executive Engineer, Karnataka State Electriccity Board and Ors. Vs. Neelakantha Gauda Siddna Gauda Patil III(2002) CPJ 312 (NC).
3. Karnataka Power Transmission Vs. Mani Thomas 2006 NCJ 617 (NC).
4. Ajmer Vidyut Nigam Ltd,. Vs. Mani Thomas 2006 NCJ 617 (NC) -
- held that, in the event of fire by sparking in the supply lines of the electricity distribution, if the field is burnt , then the electricity distribution company is liable to compensate the farmer.
8. In the background of the above submissions made by both sides and the aforesaid rulings of the Hon'ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, the provisions of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and other conditions of 6 A/72/2021 supply) Rules 2005, needs to be taken into consideration. The question is therefore, whether the consumer pays the consideration in respect of the supply of the electricity from generating station to the distribution main supply line or not, or he just pays for the consumption from the meter onwards in his house or farm.
9. S.61 and 62 of the Electricity Act, 2003 makes the provisions, as to how the tariff/per unit for the supply of the electricity is determined and fixed. The relevant portions of these sections are reproduced below.
Section 61. (Tariff regulations):
The Appropriate Commission shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, specify the terms and conditions for the determination of tariff, and in doing so, shall be guided by the following, namely:-
(a) the principles and methodologies specified by the Central Commission for determination of the tariff applicable to generating companies and transmission licensees;
(b) the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity are conducted on commercial principles;
(c) ........................
(d) safeguarding of consumers' interest and at the same time, recovery of the cost of electricity in a reasonable manner;
(e)....................
(f) ...................
7 A/72/2021
(g) that, the tariff progressively reflects the cost of supply of electricity and also, reduces cross- subsidies in the manner specified by the Appropriate Commission;
(h)...................
(i)....................
.
Section 62. (Determination of tariff):
(1) The Appropriate Commission shall determine the tariff in accordance with the provisions of this Act for-
(a) supply of electricity by a generating company to a distribution licensee:
Provided that, the Appropriate Commission may, in case of shortage of supply of electricity, fix the minimum and maximum ceiling of tariff for sale or purchase of electricity in pursuance of an agreement, entered into between a generating company and a licensee or between licensees, for a period not exceeding one year to ensure reasonable prices of electricity;
(b) transmission of electricity ;
(c) wheeling of electricity;
(d) retail sale of electricity:
Provided that, in case of distribution of electricity in the same area by two or more distribution licensees, the Appropriate Commission may, for promoting competition among distribution licensees, fix only maximum ceiling of tariff for retail sale of electricity. (2) The Appropriate Commission may require a licensee or a generating company to furnish separate details, as may be specified in respect of generation, transmission and distribution for determination of tariff.
(3)....................
(4)....................
(5)....................
(6)....................
8 A/72/2021
10. Thus, from the above relevant provisions of S.61 and 62 of the Electricity Act,2003, it is clear that, the tariff per unit of the electricity supply is being specified by the State Electricity Regulatory Commission. The Commission fixes the rate per unit of electricity after taking into account the cost of generation, transmission and distribution of the electricity. In the State of Maharashtra, State Electricity Regulatory Commission prepared the rules for the supply of electricity, namely Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (Electricity Supply Code and other conditions of supply) Rules 2005. Rule 3 of that Supply Code is relevant and important. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced below.
3. Recovery of Charges 3.1 The Distribution Licensee is authorized to recover charges for the supply of electricity from any person requiring such supply in accordance with the provisions of the Act and these Regulations.
3.2 The charges that a Distribution Licensee is authorized to recover under these Regulations include-
(a) recovery of such expenses as may be reasonably incurred by the Distribution Licensee in providing electric line or electrical plant used for the purpose of giving supply, in accordance with Regulation 3.3 below;
(b) charges for electricity supplied by the Distribution Licensee in accordance with Regulation 3.4 below.
3.3 Recovery of expenses for giving supply 3.3.1 The Distribution Licensee shall recover the expenses referred to in Regulation 3.2(a) above, in accordance with the principles contained in this 9 A/72/2021 Regulation 3.3 and based on the rates contained in the schedule of charges approved by the Commission under Regulation 18:
Provided that the Distribution Licensee may, with the approval of the Commission, in case of any category of consumers, recover such expenses on the basis of an average or normative rate for providing the electric line or electrical plant for the purpose of giving supply.
3.3.2 Where the provision of supply to an applicant entails works of laying of service line from the distributing main to the applicant's premises, the Distribution Licensee shall be authorized to recover all expenses reasonably incurred on such works from the applicant, based on the schedule of charges approved by the Commission under Regulation 18:
Provided that the Distribution Licensee shall be entitled to use such service line to supply electricity to any other person, notwithstanding that all expenses reasonably incurred have been recovered in accordance with this Regulation 3.3.2, except if such supply is detrimental to the supply to the consumer already connected therewith. 3.3.3 ................
3.3.4..................
.
3.3.5 ................
3.3.6.................
.
3.4 Charges for Electricity Supplied 3.4.1 The Distribution Licensee is authorized to recover charges for electricity supplied in accordance with such tariffs as may be fixed from time to time by the Commission:
Provided that in case of distribution of electricity in the same area by two or more Distribution Licensees,
10 A/72/2021 the Commission may fix only the maximum ceiling of tariff for retail sale of electricity.
3.4.2 The Distribution Licensee is also authorized to recover such surcharge and charges for wheeling as may be specified under the provisions of sub-section (2) and subsection (3) of Section 42 of the Act and such additional surcharge as may be specified under the provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 42 of the Act.
3.4.3 Unless otherwise specified, all HT and LT charges refer to one point of supply and each separate establishment shall be given separate point of supply.
3.4.4 The charges for electricity supplied under this Regulation 3.4 may include a fixed charge in addition to a charge for actual electricity supplied, in accordance with terms and conditions of tariff as may be specified. 3.4.5 In addition to the charges fixed by the Commission, consumers shall be required to pay all taxes, duties and other statutory charges as may be required under any law for the time being in force.
11. The above provisions makes it amply clear that, the distribution licensee does not give anything free of cost to its consumers. While fixing the 'rate of the electricity per unit' the expenses of generation and transmission and distribution to the doorstep of the consumer is also considered and included. Not only this, the basic infrastructure, plants and machinery, which are required for the supply of the electricity to the consumers are also erected on the money of the consumers. As such, in view of the benevolent provisions of the C.P.Act, every consumer who pays electricity bill honestly, becomes the consumer of the distribution licensee. There cannot be such a distinction that, he is the consumer only for 11 A/72/2021 the supply from supply point onwards and not from generation station to electric plants of distribution in generous sense of the matter.
12. In the present matter the complainants have taken the electricity supply in their field itself. They have regularly paid the bills. These facts are not disputed by the appellants. Therefore, the complainants are the consumer of the opponent even though the fire broke out in overhanging wires gone through the field of the complainants.
13. The opponents took the another defence before the District Commission that, the incident of sparking took place and it is the natural calamity. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled to get any compensation. However, while supplying the electricity through the premises of the consumers, what is the liability of the distribution licensee is also been prescribed in Rule 29(1) and 30 of the Electricity Rules, 1956. They are reproduced below.
Rule 29. Construction, installation, protection operation and maintenance of electric supply lines and apparatus-
1. All electric supply lines and apparatus shall be of sufficient ratings for power, insulation and estimated fault current and of sufficient mechanical strength for the duty which they may be required to perform under the environmental conditions of installation, and shall be constructed, installed, protected, worked and maintained in such a manner as to ensure safety of human beings, animals and property 12 A/72/2021 Rule 30. Service lines and apparatus on consumer's premises-
1. The supplier shall ensure that all electric supply lines, wires, fittings and apparatus belonging to him or under his control, which are on a consumer's premises, are in a safe condition and in all respects fit for supplying energy and the supplier shall take due precautions to avoid danger arising on such premises from such supply lines, wires, fittings and apparatus.
2. Service-lines placed by the supplier on the premises of a consumer which are underground or which are accessible shall be so insulated and protected by the supplier as to be secured under all ordinary conditions against electrical, mechanical, chemical or other injury to the insulation.
3. The consumer shall, as far as circumstances permit, take precautions for the safe custody of the equipment on his premises belonging to the supplier
4. The consumer shall also ensure that the installation under his control is maintained in a safe condition.
14. The above provisions lays down that, as to how the protection of the property and life of the consumer is to be secured by the distribution licensee. It also prescribes that, the supply lines going through the premises of the consumers and any other apparatus, are should be of such quality that, it shall survives the adverse conditions of the environment. Those should be certified by the Bureau of Indian Standards. The above provisions are not allowing the opponents to take the defence of natural calamity. As such, that contention of the opponents, also cannot be accepted.
15. Now turning to the facts of the present case the complainants have filed before the District Commission the report of the Electrical Inspector, which is the statutory and 13 A/72/2021 independent authority. His report dated 22.5.2019 clearly states that, the opponents are liable to compensate for the fire incidence taken place in the field of the complainants. On the strength of this report the District Commission held that, there has been violation of Rule No.12(1) of CEA Safety Rules and therefore, there is inadequacy and deficiency in service of the opponents. Further in view of the provisions of S.85 of the C.P.Act the opponents are liable under the head of 'product liability'. The District Commission evaluated the evidence, more particularly the report of the District Superintendent of Agriculture, Aurangabad, as to the loss caused to the complainants and held that, due to the burning of sugarcane crop of opponent no.1 the damage is of Rs. 4,08,000/- and that of burning of 300 Sweet Lemon trees is Rs. 78,59,610/-. The District Superintendent of Agriculture Aurangabad quantified the loss of complainant no.2 at Rs. 23,817/- per tree and loss of sugarcane crop of complainant no.1 at Rs.5,05,800/- on the basis of the report of the Tahasildar. On evaluating the above evidence it is held by the District Commission that, the compensation payable to each of the complainants as mentioned in the impugned judgment.
16. Adv.Mehta for the opponents, while arguing on the point of compensation granted by the District Commission submitted that, the 'cost calculation sheet' and the panchanamas of the Revenue Authorities have been discarded by the Joint Managing Director (Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd,.) Aurangabad on the ground that, the incident as stated by the complainants is not possible. It is observed by him from the photographs that, there was no dried grass near 14 A/72/2021 the sweet lemon trees and also on the spot where the sparking alleged to have been taken place. The pipes of the drip irrigation system were not burnt but melted. The leaves of the lemon trees shown no sign of burning but apparently seen to have become 'yellow' due to lack of water or excessive temperature. The ld. District Commission not considered all these aspects in proper perspectives and thereby committed an error in passing the impugned judgment.
17. On the other hand Adv. Tawar for the complainants submitted that, the Asst. Managing Director and the so called panel of the officers unilaterally discarded the reports of the Agriculture Officers, and Revenue Officers merely on the basis of photographs. The expert and direct evidence as to the incident and consequential loss quantifying the damage cannot be discarded in the manner as has been done by the Officers of the opponents. The ld. District Commission rightly appreciated all the reports and panchanams and arrived at a very precise conclusion. No error has been committed by the District Commission while passing the impugned judgment.
18. We agree with the above submissions of Adv. Tawar for the complainants. On perusal of the reports of the Agriculture Officers and that of the Revenue Officers, it reveals that, they visited the spot and drawn the panchanamas as per scene. More particularly the Agriculture Officers (who are according to us are the experts of the field of accessing the agricultural produce damage) were requested by the Officers of the opponents to give them the damage per tree of the sweet lemon and on that basis Agriculture Officers given the detail report 15 A/72/2021 assessing the loss of lemon trees due to the fire incident. The Officers of the opponents forming the panel for the assessment of the loss discarded the evidence of expert authority like Agriculture Officer and the Revenue Officers merely on the basis of photographs of the incident and opined that the loss caused is merely of Rs.9 Lakhs. According to us this is nothing but just an attempt to curtail the liability of the opponents without any valid justification. We do not think that there is any error committed by the District Commission in arriving at the quantum of the compensation to be given to the complainants. The impugned judgment therefore, is not having any factual or legal error and is liable to be confirmed. It does not requires any interference. In the facts and circumstances of this appeal it will be just to direct the opponents to pay sum of Rs. 10,000/- combinely to the complainants. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission is hereby confirmed.
3. The stay order, if any granted in favour of the opponents is stands vacated.
4. The opponents are directed to pay to the complainants combinely sum of Rs.10,000/- as the cost of this proceedings.
5. The copy of this judgment be furnished to both sides free of cost.
Mr.N.C.Kumbre Mr.M.S.Sonawane
Member Presiding Member
UNK