STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KARNATAKA FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/29/A/1633/2014 (Against the Order dated Not Available in Complaint SC/29/CC/74/2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Karnataka)

The Asst. Executive Engineer (Ele.,) & a PRESENT ADDRESS - Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd., (CESC) Maddur Taluk Mandya DistrictNCDRC,KARNATAKA.

Chamundeshwari Electricity Supply Corporation Ltd., (CESC)

PRESENT ADDRESS - Sub-Division Bharathi Nagara (K.M.Doddi) Maddur Taluk Mandya DistrictNCDRC,KARNATAKA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus Sri. Chikka Karigowda PRESENT ADDRESS - Son of Sri. Bori Konana Huchhe Gowda Aged about 60 years Residing at Doddarasinakere Village Maddur Taluk Mandya DistrictNCDRC,KARNATAKA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MR. RAVISHANKAR , JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. SMT.SUNITA CHANNABASAPPA BAGEWADI , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

NEMO DATED: INVALID DATETIME

ORDER

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 7^th DAY OF MARCH 2025 PRESENT SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT. SUNITA .C. BAGEWADI, MEMBER APPEAL NO. 1633/2014

V/s

ORDER

SRI RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER The appellant/complainant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dt.16.09.2014 passed in CC.No.74/2014 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mandya.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under;

It is the case of the complainant that being an agriculturist having agricultural land of one acre twenty guntas where he cultivated sugarcane. When the said sugarcane came up for cutting on 22.01.2013, the entire sugarcane crop was burnt due to contact with the electric poles which was sag towards the crop. Due to said fire, the complainant suffered loss of 90 tones of sugarcane, hence, claimed for compensation of Rs.1,80,000/-. Immediately, the complainant informed the same to Tahsildar and spot mahazar was conducted. Further, the police complaint was given. In this regard, NCR No.3/2013 was also registered. The complainant had availed a loan of Rs.67,500/- from Primary Cooperative Society and another Rs.60,000/- from different societies in order to grow sugarcane crop. Due to fire, he suffered financial loss, hence, filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service before the District Commission. The District Commission after trial allowed the complaint.

3. The learned counsel for appellant submits before this Commission that the alleged loss of sugarcane due to fire is commercial crop and the complainant not fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’. The said sugarcane was grown for the purpose of earning profits since the crop itself is the commercial crop. The complainant has not reported any complaint before the Electric Inspector after the fire accident and he has not given any information to any of the authorities of this appellant. There was no any short circuit or any fire caused due to electric wires. The complainant has fabricated the facts and filed a false complaint and there is no any deficiency in service on their part.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the wires which were passed through the lands of the complainant was well maintained. There was no any sag and no fire was caused due to the negligence on the part of this appellant. The District Commission without considering the said facts had allowed the complaint. The Order passed by the Dis