Executive Engineer, M.S.E.D.C.Ltd. and Another Vs. Vasant Vishnu Ghule - Court Judgment

S.M. Shembole, Presiding Judicial Member:

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 6.1.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum Osmanabad partly allowing consumer complaint No.281/2008 directing appellants/opponents to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.48,000/- for sustaining damages to the sugarcane by fire, Rs.10,000/- more towards damaged pipelines and Rs.500/- towards cost of the proceedings. (For the sake of brevity appellant is hereinafter referred as opponents and respondent as complainant).

2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-

Complainant Vasant Ghule is the owner of agriculture field bearing Gut No.66 of village Samudrawani, Tq.Osmanabad. It is irrigated land having well. He is consumer of opponents since long. Electric motor is installed on the well situated in his field and electric connection is obtained from the opponents. It is alleged that the electric wires from the electric pole in the field of complainant were hanging loose. But despite making complaint opponents neglected to maintain electric line properly.

3. On 27.8.2008 in the evening due to friction of electric wires there was sparking and due to sparking the sugarcane from his field caught fire and gutted into fire. PVC pipes of 500 fts of his pipeline also damaged. Therefore the complainant sustained loss burning entire sugarcane from his field admeasuring 2 hector 29R. Immediately after incident of fire he reported incident to the police as well as revenue authorities and also to the opponents. Police/Revenue authorities prepared panchanama but opponents did not take any cognizance. Therefore he claimed compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- from the opponents by sending notice. But opponents did not respond his notice. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponents he has filed consumer complaint claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- and Rs.2000/- more towards cost of the proceedings. He has also claimed interest @ 10%.

4. Opponents by their written version resisted complaint on the following among other ground:-

They did not dispute that complainant is owner of Gut No.66. However, for want of knowledge they have denied that complainant had grown sugarcane in his field. They have also denied that electric wires were hanging loose and there was fire to the sugarcane due to friction of wires etc. They have submitted that if any incident of fire causing loss to the complainant did take place it was not due to negligence on their part and therefore they are not responsible for it. They have denied all other averments made by complainant and submitted to dismiss the complaint.

4. On hearing both sides and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum partly allowed the complainants claim as noted above.

5. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order opponents came to this Commission in appeal.

6. We heard learned counsel for both sides and perused the written notes of argument submitted by them. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint, written version, panchanama prepared by police, electricity bills and other documents. During the course of arguments it is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the opponents that complainant is a consumer of opponents as electric connection is given to the electric motor installed on the well situated in his field. He also did not dispute that the sugarcane from the field of complainant was burnt. But it is disputed that it was due to sparking of electric wires as alleged by the complainant. He has also denied that PVC pipes from the pipelines were burnt and damaged. It is contended that as high tension main line passed from the field of complainant, Consumer Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute pertaining to the damage caused due to friction of electric wires from high tension line etc. It is further submitted that complainant had already sold sugarcane from his field to the sugar factory and therefore he has not sustained any loss. As against the argument of learned counsel for opponents, Mr.S.A.Wakure learned counsel for the complainant denied that there was sparking due to friction of electric wires from high tension line etc. It is submitted that the sugarcane caught fire due to sparking by friction of service line provided to the field of complainant. As there is no specific evidence on record about passing high tension electric line from the field of complainant, we have no hesitation to accept the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the complainant.

7. Mr.Wakure learned counsel for the complainant further submitted that due to fire which was caused by sparking of electric wires entire sugarcane from the field of complainant and also pipeline completely damaged. Therefore considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum has rightly awarded compensation Rs.48,000/- towards damages and Rs.10,000/- for pipelines. But we find little force in the submission of Mr.Wakure. Firstly, because except bare contention of complainant that the sugarcane factory refused to purchase his burnt sugarcane, there is no evidence to show that sugarcane factory refused to purchase the burnt sugarcane. Moreover there is also no evidence to show that how pipes of pipeline were damaged when generally pipes of pipeline are buried in the land. It is not the specific contention of complainant that pipes were open but District Consumer Forum without considering all these facts jumped to the wrong conclusion that complainant sustained loss of Rs.10,000/- due to damage of pipelines etc.

8. Moreover, as pointed out above there is no evidence to show that sugar factory refused to purchase burnt sugarcane of the complainant. In our view no sugar factory refuse to purchase burnt sugarcane. To our knowledge sugar factories purchase burnt sugarcane immediately on priority basis with an object that its weight should not be reduced. However, the sugar factories purchase such sugarcane deducting some percentage of price. Some factories purchase such sugarcane deducting 10 to 15% price amount whereas some factories 20% price. Therefore the complainants contention that his entire sugarcane was gutted into fire and he sustained cent per cent loss etc., cannot be sustained. Even if it is presumed that sugar factory as alleged by the complainant refused to purchase his burnt sugarcane, he has not disclosed as to how and where he disposed of burnt sugarcane. Therefore on any count complainants contention that he sustained total loss cannot be accepted. But it appears from the copy of impugned judgment and order District Consumer Forum without considering all these aspects jumped to the wrong conclusion that complainant sustained cent percent loss due to burnt sugarcane from his field.

9. Further it is vehemently argued by learned counsel appearing for opponents that District Consumer Forum without any evidence wrongly jumped to the conclusion that average yield of sugarcane was 40 tons per acre. According to the learned counsel for the opponents, average yield may not be more than 30 tons per acre. To which, it is denied by Shri.S.A.Wakure learned counsel for the complainant and submitted that average yield of sugarcane from the field of complainant was 90 tons per acre. But District Consumer Forum has considered it as 40 tons per acre. But we find little force in the submission of Shri.Wakure. Because except the bare contention of complainant there is no evidence about the average of the sugarcane. Complainant has not produced any record pertaining to the yield of the sugarcane from his field. In our view average yield of the sugarcane depends upon fertility and cultivation of land. In this case since there is no evidence about fertility of land and also its cultivation, it cannot be accepted that the average yield was more than 90 tons per acre. Any how as District Consumer Forum has held that average yield is 40 tons per acre, in our view same is just and proper and considering average yield and also the then prevailing rate of the sugarcane District Consumer Forum has assessed the compensation at Rs.48,000/-. But as stated earlier as District Consumer Forum has not considered the facts as to how and where complainant has disposed of burnt sugarcane, assessment made by it is being not proper cannot be accepted. As pointed above complainant might have sold the burnt sugarcane to sugar factory at less price i.e.maximum at 20% less price or he might have sold it anywhere at such 20% less rate. Therefore in our view proper assessment of loss which is sustained to the complainant would be at Rs.9600/-.

10. As far as the amount of compensation towards damaged pipeline is concerned, as already stated above since there is no specific evidence on record about damaged pipeline, impugned order granting compensation at Rs.10,000/- is being unfounded, liable to be set aside.

11. For the foregoing reasons appeal deserves to be partly allowed. Hence the following order.

ORDER

Appeal is partly allowed and impugned order is modified as under:-

1. Opponents 1 and 2 are directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.9600/- instead of Rs.48,000/- only with interest @ rate of 9% p.a. with effect from the date of filing of complaint i.e. 16.9.2008.

2. Impugned order awarding compensation of Rs.10,000/- for damaging pipelines is set aside.

3. Impugned order awarding cost of proceedings is maintained.

4. Copies of the order be sent to both the parties.