MAHABUBNAGAR CITIZENS COUNCIL vs DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, APSEB

C.D.No.360/91was filed by Mahabubnagar Citizens Council, through its President against the Divisional Engineer, Electrical Operation, A.P.S.E.B. Mahabubnagar, against the order dated 19.10.1991 in C.D. No. 81/90on the Hie of District Forum, Mahabubnagar. The complainant''s case is that the consumer is an agriculturist having electric power connection No. 75 in his land in Survey No. 443. In this land, there is an electric R.C.C. pole to connect the power pump set and that the pole was having a stay wire to support the pole, but it was not having any porcelain joinder to prevent the passing of the electric supply to earth in case of short circuit of the electric wire. That on 9.6.90 at about 3.00 p.m. when the consumer and one other person were doing work in the agriculture land, one bullock got into contact with stay wire and as the electric power was passing through the stay wire, due to which the bullock fell down, and it can be removed with the help of neigh hours with a rope and by that time the bullock was dead.

AS the bullock died on account of the electrocutin and as the consumer is the owner of the bullock and suffered loss due to the death of the bullock and as he could not immediately purchase another bullock to cultivate the land, he suffered a great loss, he therefore, filed the complaint for compensation. Post mortem examination was conducted by the Medical Officer, Veternity hospital and issued a certificate. There was a report also submitted by the Sarpanch Grampanchayat Yenugonda and the S.I. of Police, Rural Police Station, Mahabubnagar was also informed. Due to the negligence of the helper, the procelai joinder was not fixed to the stay wire and that therefore the electric power passed through the stay wire and that after repeated requests, the stay wire was changed. On account of the aforesaid deficiency on the part of the Electricity Board to take appropriate care and on their failure to fix the line joinder, the aforesaid incident occurred and the consumer claimed Rs. 3,000/- being the cost of the bullock and Rs. 11,000/- towards crop loss and also Rs. 5,000/- towards the compensation.

Before the District Forum, Mahabubnagar, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. A.1 to A.4 were marked on behalf of the complainant and one witness was examined on behalf of the opposite party. The District Forum on a consideration of the evidence on record found that the bullock died due to the electric shock due to the negligence on the part of the Electricity Board, as they could not put porcelain joinder to the stay wire and as R.W.1 stated that as per their rule, they pay a compensation of Rs. 500/- when a full dies, awarded Rs. 2,000/- towards the value of the bull and Rs. 1,000/- towards compensation and costs after taking into consideration that the cost of the bull in general is Rs. 2,000/-.

AGGRIEVED by the same, the complainant preferred CDA No.360/91 and the opposite party preferred C.D.A. No. 30/92. In the appeal preferred by the complainant, he contended that the Forum ought to have awarded Rs. 11,000/- being the damages sustained by the consumer on account of the fact that he could not purchase another bull immediately for cultivating the lands, and that therefore he suffered loss to a tune of Rs. 11,000/-. It is also submitted that the value of the bull is Rs. 3,000/- and that therefore the District Forum ought to have awarded Rs. 3,000/- towards the value of the bull. In the appeal preferred by the opposite party, it is contended that this is a case where the consumer suffered loss due to the negligence, if any, the District Forum cannot entertain such complaint and in any event the District Forum should have awarded only a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards compensation and for the loss of bull as it found that the value of the bull was only Rs. 2,000/- and therefore erred in awarding Rs. 3,000/-.

THE claim of the complainant for compensation of Rs. 11,000/- is too remote. Due to touching of the electric live wire, the bull died. It does not automatically follow that the consumer will not be able to cultivate the land, and he should have prevented the damage by taking recourse either for hiring the bulls or purchasing another bull. Hence, we are satisfied that the loss of crop claimed by the complainant is not a direct consequence of the death of the bull and the damage if any suffered is too remote. Hence, the appeal preferred by the complainant is dismissed. No costs. During the pendency of the appeal preferred by the opposite party, the State Commission directed the opposite party to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,000/- in the District Forum. Accordingly, the opposite party deposited a sum of Rs. 2,000/-. The District Forum also found that the cost of the bull is Rs. 2,000/-. Having regard to the aforesaid finding we are satisfied that the District Forum ought not to have given Rs. 3,000/-. We, therefore, reduce the amount of compensation granted by the District Forum from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 2,000/-. The Counsel for the appellant in C.D.A. No. 30/92 contended that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim of this nature. Since the amount of Rs. 2,000/- was already deposited and having regard to the circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to go into the merits of the aforesaid contention with regard to the jurisdiction of the District Forum to entertain the complaint of this nature.

IN the result, the appeal C.D.A. No. 30/92 is allowed in part and the amount of consideration is reduced from Rs. 3,000/- to Rs. 2,000/- as the complainant is entitled to withdraw the amount of Rs. 2,000/- deposited in the District Forum. No costs. Appeal No. 360/91 dismissed. Appeal No. 30/92 allowed.