National Consumer Disputes Redressal
The Assistant Executive Engineer, ... vs Sri Neelakanta Goiuda Siddanagouda ... on 11 February, 2002
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. Petitoner, Karnataka State Electricity Board (Now Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd.) was the opposite party before the District Forum in a complaint filed by the respondent-complainant.
2. In the complaint damages have been claimed for loss of sugarcane crops, coconut trees and chikku trees which were burnt because of sparking from the electric wires passing over the filed of the complainant. The wires where sparking took place were providing electricity to the pump set of the complainant for irrigation purposes. It was stated that the distance between the poles was too much and the wires were handing loose due to distance. Complainant said that he informed the authorities of the Electricity Board to rectify the defect but no action was taken. On the night of 10.3.96 electric wires between the poles touched together due to wind which was blowing and as a result there was sparking fire on sugar cane crops. These trees were damaged. Complainant, therefore, staked claim for Rs. 4,15,825. Loss was duly noticed by the Tahasildar of the area on the following day and also by the Assistant Agricultural Officer who noted that there was damage to the extent of Rs. 96,000/- Police and Fire Fighting Station Officer were also informed and they made efforts to extinguish the fire. District Forum on the basis of the material on record allowed the complaint holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the petitioners-opposite parties in not providing safe electric current through the wires passing over the filed of the complainant. District Forum by its order dated 19.8.1998 awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- which was directed to be paid within one month else it was to carry interest @ 18% per annum.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, petitioners-Electricity Board filed appeal before the State Commission which upheld the order of the District Forum. It was admitted before the State Commission by the Electricity Board that complainant was in fact consumer. As a matter of fact, appeal was also filed by the complainant seeking enhancement of the compensation. Both the appeals were dismissed
4. However, feeling aggrieved of the order of the State Commission. Electricity Board has filed this petition. Having considered the matter we do not find any error in the order of the District Forum as affirmed by the State Commission to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Company Protection Act, 1986. This revision petition is dismissed.