ANKUSH & ORS. vs SUPERINRENDING ENGINEER

The complainants, namely, Ankush, S/o. Sh. Bhagawanrao Taur, Ms. Sindhu, W/o. Sh. Ankush Taur, Sh. Abhijit and Sh. Amol, Ss/o. Sh. Ankush Taur, are owners of field covering two Hectares, 92 R, situated at Ridhori, Taluk Majalgaon, District Beed, Aurangabad,Maharashtra. They irrigate their fields by taking water from Jaikwadi Dam installed on Godavari river. They have installed electric motor pump at the Banks of Godavari river by taking connection from Opposite Party ? MSEDCL. A 11KV electric line was passing through the above said field of the complainants. There is one pole between of same electric line in the said field. They planted sugar-cane in the above said field. The said sugar-cane was well-grown and was ready for harvesting.

Unfortunately, on 27.09.2010, at about 2.30PM, a live electric wire from 11KV line stood broken and by touching the same to another line, there was sparkling and due to sparking, dry leaves of the sugar-cane caught fire and by spreading fire all over the field, entire sugar-cane from the field was burnt putting the complainants at loss in the sum of Rs.8.00 lakhs. Police was informed, Panchnama was prepared. Electrical Inspector also visited the spot. The MSEDCL and their functionaries arrayed as OPs 1 to 5, did not pay heed to the claim made by the complainants.

Consequently, this complaint was filed before the District Forum, claiming compensation at Rs.8.00 lakhs with interest @ 12% p.a., towards the cost of the damage incurred and further compensation in the sum of Rs.2.00 lakhs towards mental agony.

The OPs contested this case. They admitted that the complainants had obtained electric connection to their electric motor which is installed on the Banks of river Godavari. The growing of sugar-cane and its destruction was not disputed. They also did not pick-up a conflict with the accident of fire. According to the OPs, it was an accidental event and they are not liable for the same. They explained that the complainants are not "consumers".

The District Forum allowed the complaint and granted compensation in the sum of Rs.6,12,500/- towards cost of the damage incurred and further compensation in the sum of Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- more, towards the costs of the proceedings.

The State Commission, however, accepted the appeal filed by the OPs and dismissed the complaint.

We have heard the counsel for the parties. The counsel for the respondents/OP vehemently argued that the complainants are their ''consumers'', so far as "service-line" is concerned, but this is a case of ''transmission line'', which has nothing to do with the ''service line''. Consequently, the complainants are not their ''consumers''. In support of his case, he has cited the judgment of the State Commission, titled as Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., & Ors. Vs. Babulal Kuberchand Gandhi, First Appeal Nos. A/07/227 & A/07/228, dated 10.03.2010 . In the said judgment, the State Commission has referred to authorities Shankar Sitaram Jadhav Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, reported in 1994 STPL (CL) 582 NC, Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Ganga Devi, reported in 1997 CCJ 1541, U.P. State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Munnoo, reported in 2004 CCJ 390, Hemlatha Vs. APSEB & Ors., reported in 1999 (1) CPR 132.

All these authorities have not got the similar facts. In para No. 22 of the said judgment, dated 10.03.2010, it was mentioned " The learned counsel for the complainant tried to reply upon the case decided by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, wherein it has been held that once the consumer is connected with any line of the electric supply, he becomes an integrated part of the said system and he is entitled to get benefit under the C.P.Act, is not approved by us, in view of the authorities referred to above and also the view taken by the Hon''ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, and therefore, the contention which has been raised by the complainant is hereby rejected".

However, we took the opposite view similar to the one taken by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the order dated 10.03.2010 (already quoted above) in Original Petition No. 253 of 2002, titled Smt. Munesh Devi Vs. The U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., dated 03.02.2014. The S.L.P. filed against it, was dismissed.

Counsel for the petitioners/complainants submitted that the ''transmission'' belongs to the OPs and was installed by them. The OPs have approved its power. Consequently, it clearly goes to establish the ''negligence'' on the part of the OPs. It is not out of place to mention here that a number of farmers have committed suicide in the State of Maharashtra due to poverty and starvation. The farmers should have been treated with kid gloves by all and sundry but it is painful and galling that State and its functionaries care not even a fig for them. Consequently, we allow the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the State Commission. The order of the District Forum is confirmed.