1 scl cBr / 29 / A/ t449 / 2Ot7 Date of filing: O4.O7,2017 Date of Disposal: L7.O2,2O26 BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMR DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KALBURGI DATED: 17th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 CORAM: ^{HON,BLE MT. ,USTICE T.G. SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA} - ^PRESIDENT and HON'BLE Mrs. DMASHREE M - LADY MEMBER sc I cBL I 29 I A I t449 I 2017 BETWEEN:

The Executive Engineer Gulbarga Electricity Supply Company, (GESCOM), Bidar Division, Bidar-585403 Appellant/s (By Sri.Mahesh.S. Patil, Advocate)

AND:

Nagamma Wo ^{Basappa Serikar} Aged about 52 years Occ: House hold and Agriculture R/at Gumma Village, Taluk and District Bidar-585403. ........ Respondent/s (By Sri.Sham A Namical, Advocate)

2 sc/ cBl / 29 / Al 1449/ 2017 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE T.c. SHMSHANKARE GOWDA, 'RESIDENT)

This Appeal is filed U/s.15 of Consumer protection Act, 1986 (in short Cp Act) by the Appellant challenging the order dated:21.02.2017 passed in CC/53/2016 on the file of Bidar District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission iin snort the District Commission).

2.

The Appeltant was Opposite party (in short Op)

and Respondent was the Complainant before the District Commission. The Rank of the parties shall be referred to as per their status before the District Commission.

3.

The Brief facts of the case are that:

The Complainant is owner of she_buffalo aged g years. It was milking buffalo. She was earning money by selling milk. On 25.06.2016 at about 7 am, when the Complainant took her she-buffalo for grazing in the land of Sri.Shivaji Patil, it came into contact of electric pole wire and due to electrocution died at the spot. Matter was reported to Rural Police, Bidar who visited the spot and conducted sc/ cB7 / 29 / Al r44g / 2077 the panchnama.

Veterinary of Doctor Bidar has conducted post Mortem and assessed the value of she_

buffalo at Rs.50,000 /-.

The Complainant has made claim with Op who failed to consider the same. Hence alleging deficiency in service, she filed complaint before the District Commission.

4.

Before the District Commission, the Op has opposed the complaint by filing version contending that, complaint is not maintainable without impleading Managing Director of GESCOM. Complainant is not a consumer under Indian Electricity Act, thereby Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. She can seek compensation before District and Sessions Judge, Bidar only. Claim of Rs.1 lakh is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the complaint.

5. Before the District Commission, the Complainant has filed affidavit evidence and marked g documents as Ex-P1 to pg. Op has filed affidavit evidence but no documents were produced.

After

4 sc/cBU29lA/144912017 hearing both parties, the District Commission allowed the complaint in part and directed Op to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at t2o/o p.a.

from 12.07.2Ot6 till realization; to pay Rs.3,000/_

towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost. Aggrieved by the said order, Op has preferred this appeal.

6.

We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for Appellant. Learned Counsel for Respondent is absent.

7 Now the point that arise for consideration is:

Whether the order of the District Commission is perverse/illegat, does cafl for interference ?

REASONS

8. It is contended by Learned Counsel for Appellant that, Complainant is not a consumer.

She ought to have go before Special Court established under Indian Electricity Act. The District Commission without verifying the records, allowed the complaint.

Hence sought for interference.

sc/ cBt / 29 / Al 744s/ 2077

9. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments addressed by Learned Counsel for Appellant. perused the materials on record.

10.

Firstly, in to order claim compensation, Complainant in order seek relief before the District Commission she must be a consumer. To consider her complaint, the District Commission has relied on the judgment of Hon,bte NCDRDC in ,,CGMp vs.

ONpDCL &

.IV Ots.r" reported in (200g)

CpJ 139 NC,