At, Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Bangalore
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. RAVISHANKAR
By, PRESIDING MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MRS. SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI
For the Appellants: H.V. Devaraju, Advocate. For the Respondent: H.V. Hiremath, Advocate.
Ravishankar, Judicial Member
1. The appellants/Opposite Parties have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.24.09.2016 passed in CC.No.83/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bagalkot.
2. The appellant stated in the memorandum of appeal that the District Commission has made an error in not appreciating the grounds made out by the Opposite Party before the trial. They say that the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service for not settling the claim towards the burning of sugarcane crop in the land of the complainant which was caused due to electric fire. The District Commission had awarded Rs.89,600/- along with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of order, till realization.
3. Heard the arguments of both parties.
4. The learned counsel for appellant before this Commission had vehemently argued that the District Commission had exorbitantly awarded interest on the award amount and also not considered the actual cause for fire and further submits that the crop loss was not due to negligence on their part. There is a short circuit in the electricity supply to the HP Motor Set of the complainant’s land. Hence they are not liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order and documents produced before the District Commission, it is an admitted fact that the sugarcane crop of the complainant was burned, but, the report submitted by the officials of the appellant company have not mentioned the reason for fire accident. We observed in similar cases that the report is a photo type report which was made at office and produced in all cases. They have not properly investigated the fire accident. The District Commission rightly appreciated the facts of the case and relied upon a decision reported in 2013(1) CPR 510 (NC) in the matter between Divisional Engineer (Operations) APSPDCL and another v/s Smt. Bujamma & others wherein it is held that “ It is the duty of Electricity Provider to ensure proper upkeep of transmission line ”. Hence, it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party in not settling the claim. The District Commission has rightly awarded the compensation to be payable by the Opposite Party, but, the interest which was awarded is exorbitant without any valid reasons. Hence, the interest portion is hereby revised from 12% to 6% from the date of the Order of District Commission i.e. 24.09.2
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
016, till realization. Hence, the following; ORDER The appeal is disposed-off. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the District Commission for disbursement of the same to the complainant. Forward free copies to both parties.