Electricity Board's duty to maintain electric lines and compensate for negligence under the Electricity Act, 2003.

ORDER

D. Appa Rao, President - This is an appeal preferred by the Electricity Board aggrieved by the order of the District Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati, in directing it to pay Rs. 45,000 towards damages and Rs. 1,000 towards costs.

2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he was a small farmer. He installed 5 HP tube well electric connection under service No. 44 in his field. He raised sugarcane crop by utilizing power for irrigating his land, through which a 11 KV electric line was passing. While so, on 16.10.2006 at about 2.00 p.m. a live wire was cut and fell on his agricultural field. The entire crop was burnt. Immediately on information the officials of the Electricity Board came and restored the line. On report, the Fire Station Officer had extinguished the fire. In all he had sustained a damage of Rs. 90,000 towards loss of crop. He gave legal notice claiming the amount, for which the Board gave reply admitting that the live wire was cut, however rectified the same. Since the Board did not pay any amount towards damages, he claimed Rs. 1,70,000 towards damages, comprising Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of burnt sugarcane crop, Rs. 20,000 towards medical treatment and Rs. 50,000 towards compensation and costs of Rs. 2,000.

3. The appellant Electricity Board resisted the case. While admitting that on 16.10.2006 there was a heavy rainfall and thunder and the rain was recorded by the Tahsildar of Yerpedu Mandal, alleged that though the wire had fallen on the field, there was no damage to the crop. The complainant has to prove as to the damage that was caused to his crop. He fabricated the documents and filed the case. He was not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit and got Exs. A.1 to A.11 marked, while the opposite parties filed Exs. B.1 to B.3.

5. The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that the electric wire was snapped, fell on the sugarcane crop and damaged the crop. It opined that the crop worth Rs. 45,000 was damaged. Accordingly, it awarded compensation together with costs.

6. Aggrieved by the said decision, the Electricity Board preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not consider Ex. B.1 certificate issued by the Tahsildar. The complainant was not a consumer and there was no negligence on their part. It prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

7. The point that arises for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of appellants and whether it was liable to pay compensation

8. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant owns Ac. 1.75 cents of land and that he raised sugarcane crop in the said filed. It is not in dispute that he availed electric connection, evidenced under Ex. A.1 passbook. It is also not in dispute that on 16.10.2006 there was heavy rain and gale and wind due to which the electric wire snapped and fell on the sugarcane crop raised by the complainant. The same was gutted. He raised sugarcane crop and that the same was damaged due to the snap of electric wire was certified by the Station Fire Officer, evidenced under Ex. A.5 and the Village Secretary of Madibaka Gram Panchayat, evidenced under Ex. A.4, besides the representation of the Ryots. It is not as though the Board denies the accident. It admits in its reply Ex. A.9 sent through its Counsel admitting in the following lines:

"My clients further represent that after the information of fire accident the Asst. Engineer rushed to the spot and found that the 11 K.V. line was cut and fallen on the ground. The line was restrung with the help of field staff by 3.00 p.m. on the same day. By the time the fire was stopped by the villagers. It is false to state that the entire crop was damaged. Your client has not produced any record to show that Government Agricultural Officer has visited the fields and estimated the damage caused to your client. The allegations made in the notice a