Date of filing :28.09.2021 Date of order :12.02.2026 MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,MUMBAI, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

FIRST APPEAL NO. : 886 OF 2021 IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 297 OF 2019 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : BEED

1. Maharashtra State Electricity …APPELLANTS Distribution Company Ltd. (Adv.P.S.Mehta )

Executive Engineer , Division Office, Ambajogai, Tq.Ambajogai, Dist.Beed.

2. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. , Dy Executive Engineer , R/o Sub Division, Telgaon, Tq.Dharur, Dist.Beed.

3. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Through Junior Engineer, Sub-Station, Wadvani, Tq.Wadvani, Dist.Beed.

VERSUS Kashinath Vishvanath Maikar, …RESPONDENT R/o Salimba, Tq.Wadvani, (Adv.P.A.Pisal)

Dist.Beed.

CORAM : Milind.S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

Nagesh.C.Kumbre, Hon’ble Member J U D G M E N T (Delivered on 12/02/2026)

Per Milind S.Sonawane, Hon’ble Presiding Member.

This is an appeal challenging the correctness and legality of the judgment and order passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Beed (the ‘District Commission’ for short) in C.C.No.297/2021 whereby, it hold the appellants liable for the deficiency in service and directed them to pay to the respondent sum of Rs.49,407/- for the burning of the sugarcane crop and Rs.1,02,774/- for the burning of pipes of the drip irrigation set along with interest @ 8 % p.a. till the realisation and along with the sums for the mental and physical harassment and the cost of the proceedings.

2. The respondent is the farmer holding agricultural land Gut No.184 in Mouze Salimba. In that field he had planted the sugarcane crop. On 06/02/2019 at about 3.00 p.m. the overhanging of wires of low tension line gone across the field touched the sugarcane crop and sparking took place. As a result, the field catch the fire. In the incident, his 1 hector 20R of sugarcane crop and drip irrigation set and pipes burnt out. He informed the incident to the officers of the appellants, Tahasildar, Talathi, Police and Electrical Inspector. They carried out the panchanama. Ultimately it is turned out that his sugarcane to the tune of 85 ton burnt and he suffered economic loss. His drip irrigation set and pipes were also burnt. Electrical Inspector clearly mentioned in his report that because of the deficiency on the part of the appellants the incident took place and they are liable to compensate. However, when the appellants did not compensate him, he filed above mentioned consumer complaint before District Commission, in which the impugned judgment is passed. Being aggrieved by the said judgment the appellants are before us in this appeal.

3. The Ld. Adv.P.S.Mehta for the appellants submitted that though the low tension line has gone through the field of the respondent but the respondent has not been given electricity supply from that line. It is therefore the respondent is not the consumer of the appellants. It is his second submission that, the report of the Electrical Inspector nowhere indicated that because of the deficient service the incident of the fire took place. On the contrary, in this regard it is argued by Adv.Pisal for the respondent that, the appellants have given electricity connection in the same field to the respondent and the respondent has undisputedly paid all the bills on electricity quite regularly. As such, the respondent is the consumer of the appellants. It is also submitted by him that the report of Electrical Inspector clearly mentioned that, because of the more than the specified distance between the two poles the overhanging wires gone through the field of the respondent have curved down in his field. When the height of the sugarcane crop raised by growing there was sparking in the wires and incident took place. The appellants have committed breach of Rule No.13 & 35 of Central Electricity Rules and liable to pay the compensation to the respondent. As such, there is no merit in the appeal of the appellants a