EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, AURANGABAD RURAL vs ATMARAM KISANRAO AUTE & ANR

This revision is directed against the order of Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 30.09.2014 whereby the State Commission concurred with the finding of the District Forum Aurangabad and dismissed the appeal.

Briefly put the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that complainant is the owner of agricultural field Gut No. 262/2 Village Chikni, Tq. Paithan, District Aurangabad. Respondent no.1 complainant filed consumer complaint alleging loss of his crop on account of fire caused due to short circuit in the transformer of the opposite party which occurred due to negligence. The complainant, therefore, raised a consumer dispute claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 19,72,400/-.

The petitioner opposite party as also respondent no.2 Electricity Distribution Company filed a joint written statement resisting the complaint. It was denied that any fire incident took place on 23.04.2008 due to short circuit in the transformer of the petitioner and respondent no.2

District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and evidence adduced particularly Enquiry Report of the Electricity Inspector came to the conclusion that opposite parties were guilty of deficiency in service. The District Forum thus allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner and OP No.2 / respondent no.2 to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.1,25,000/- besides Rs.5000/- as compensation for mental harassment and other expenses.

Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, Opposite Party No.1 who is executive engineer of Opposite Party No.2 preferred an appeal before the State Commission Maharashtra and Circuit Bench of the State Commission at Aurangabad vide impugned order concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. This has led to filing of the revision petition.

Learned Shri Atul Babasahed Dakh, Advocate for the petitioner has taken me through the record and submitted that all through the stand of the opposite party had been that no fire incident took place on the fateful day because of short circuit in the transformer and no loss was sustained by the petitioner. Leared counsel has contended that foras below have failed to appreciate that there was no evidence adduced on the record that fire accident took place because of any short circuit and as such, the impugned order against the facts are not sustainable.

Counsel for the respondent on the contrary has argued in support of the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the revision petition.

Revisional powers of the National Commission flows from Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which is reproduced as under; "21. Jurisdiction of the National Commission (b) to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity."

On reading of the above, it is clear that revisional powers of the National Commission are limited to the extent that National Commission can interfere in the finding of the foras below provided there is some jurisdictional error or some material irregularity committed by the foras below. Otherwise also, it is well settled that while exercising revisional powers, National Commission should not reappreciate the facts returned by the foras below. In the instant case, both the foras below have returned a concurrent finding of fact holding that fire accident took place on account of negligence of the petitioner as also respondent no.2 Electricity Distribution Company in maintaining their transformer and electricity line.

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that aforesaid finding is against the facts. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner is without any merit. On reading of the order of the District Forum, I find that order of the District Forum is based upon panchnama prepared by 1. Crop of Sugar cane 60 M. Ton

Sweet lemon Rs.30,000/-

The Trees of Tick wood has partially burnt."

Tehsildar and the Enquiry Report of the Electricity Inspector. The relevant observations of the District Forum are reproduced as under

: "Considering the documents filed on record on both the sides and after hearing the submissions raised before the Forum, it reveals that applicant is a consumer of Respondents having land gut No. 262/2, Nandur Shivar Tq. Paithan District Aurangabad. He has obtained power supply from the respondents to the agri. pump in the field. The respondents have installed D.P. in his field for the power supply. It is submitted by the applicant that on 23.04.2008 due to the fault in the D.P. and electric wires, fire caught place and the crops damaged. The Tehsildar has conducted panchnama of the accident and mentioned that caught fire due to the fault in the DP. The enquiry was made from the office of Electric Inspector. Coming under the Department of Industry and Energy, Government of Maharashtra and filed its report on 01.09.2008. According to the said report, it is clear that due to the friction of electric wires, short circuit fire took place. It is seen that fire took place because of the fault in the D.P. installed by the respondents. The Agri. Assistant, Talathi Nandur have conducted the panchnama and estimated the loss. According to these panchnama the applicant has sustained the following loss of crop in the field. Crop of Sugar cane 60 M. Ton Sweet lemon Rs.30,000/- The Trees of Tick wood has partially burnt."

On reading of the above, it is clear that findings of the District Forum which has been confirmed by the State Commission is based upon the report of Electricity Inspector who is the employee of the opposite party. Copy of the report of Electricity Inspector as also panchnama prepared by revenue authorities have been filed by the petitioner. Panchnama dated 01.07.2008 reads as under; "We the undersigned people are R/o Village Apegaon, upon being called by the Agri. Assistant, Sajja Nandur remained present in the Gut No.262 then found the burned sugar cane placed on the boundary. When we panchas verified then come to know that Shri Atmaram Kishanrao Aute is the owner of the land who had taken crop of sugar cane in 2 acre land, corn in 4 guntas and new sweet lemon is 3 years in 1 acre land, in his field. The burned sugar cane was able to be taken for crushing by the sugar factory. The crop of wheat taken in between the crops of sweet lemon trees was also affected. Similarly, the tick wood trees on the boundary are also burned partially. The said sugar cane would have been weight upto 60 to 65 ton. The loss of Rs.30,000/- might have been caused to the crop of sweet lemon. According to our panchas, the cause of fire might be because of fiction to the electric wires which resulted into short circuit and caught the fire. This panchnama is written on the spot and signed by us after reading the same. Date : 1.7.2008"

Relevant portion of the report of Electricity Inspector in letter dated 01.09.2008 addressed to the petitioner is reproduced as under: "There was a slop in the first span of hanging wires passing from the transformer of MSEDCL going above the boundary of the land gut No.262/2 of village Nandur Tq. Paithan owned by Shri Atmaram Kishanrao Aute and the branches of the tree Sevari situated on the boundary touched to the hanging wires due to the flow of air and when two wires came into contact, short circuit took place and spark fell down on dry bushes which caught fire and sparking took place in the transformer box and the sparking spread on dry leaves of sugar cane which caught fire to the sugar cane crop. Due to heavy air blow, fire caught the place. Due to the heavy air blow the fire spread in the field and wheat cuttings caught the fire and nearby sweet lemon trees, tick wood trees were burned. Had been the MSEDCL Company cut the branches of Saveri Tree which were causing obstruction to the hanging wires and had been the proper capacity wires of distribution fixed in the box, then the incident of fire would not have happened."

On reading of the above, it is clear that Electricity Inspector has held opposite party guilty of negligence. Under these circumstances, the negligence on the part of the opposite party stands established. Therefore, the orders of the foras below holding the opposite parties deficient in service cannot be faulted.

In view of the discussion above, petitioner has failed to show any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order may which call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed.