Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Some cases specify that compensation awarded for damage to crops and trees was adequate and no further enhancement is warranted ["NORTH EASTERN TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS - Gauhati"], ["THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER vs B. H. NAGARAJAREDDY @ NAGARAJAREDDY - Karnataka"], ["Municipal Committee Harda v. Harda Electric Supply Co. (Private) Ltd. Hard - Madhya Pradesh"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In agriculture-dependent regions, reliable electricity is crucial for irrigation and crop yield. When supply disruptions, faulty infrastructure, or negligence by electricity providers lead to crop damage, farmers often seek compensation. A common query arises: electricity op citation for calculation of damage and loss of crops in favor to the petitioner to enhance the award amount. This post delves into relevant Indian court precedents, legal principles, and practical guidance to help understand how courts assess and award damages, typically emphasizing evidence of actual loss and provider negligence.
Note: This is general information based on case law and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Courts generally award compensation for crop damage or loss due to electricity supply issues when there's clear evidence of actual loss and deficiency or negligence by the electricity provider. The duty of electricity boards to maintain lines and ensure proper service is central. For instance, damages are calculated based on proven loss, considering factors like negligence in supply, such as non-supply, disruptions, or faulty equipment like burnt transformers or fallen live wires. TEJPAL VS HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Consumer (1997)B. S. E. S. RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED VS PRIT SINGH - Consumer (2004)A. P. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. VS G. SUBBARAMA NAIDU - Consumer (2009)
Key points from precedents include:- Compensation hinges on evidence of actual loss and provider fault. TEJPAL VS HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Consumer (1997)B. S. E. S. RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED VS PRIT SINGH - Consumer (2004)- Courts uphold awards for negligence causing direct damage, e.g., burnt transformer leading to agricultural losses. B. S. E. S. RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED VS PRIT SINGH - Consumer (2004)A. P. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. VS G. SUBBARAMA NAIDU - Consumer (2009)- Reliable documentation is essential; without it, awards may be reduced or denied. Madan Lal VS Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. - Consumer (2009)
In TEJPAL VS HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Consumer (1997), the court upheld compensation for crop damage from non-supply of electricity, confirming the loss assessment was supported by evidence. Similarly, B. S. E. S. RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED VS PRIT SINGH - Consumer (2004) reinforced liability for a burnt transformer disrupting supply, stating the provider is accountable for deficient service.
Conversely, Madan Lal VS Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. - Consumer (2009) rejected enhanced compensation due to lack of credible evidence linking crop loss solely to electricity failure: the petitioner failed to produce credible evidence of crop loss attributable solely to electricity failure.
Electricity providers have a legal duty to maintain infrastructure. In A. P. SOUTHERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. VS G. SUBBARAMA NAIDU - Consumer (2009), compensation was awarded for crop damage from a live wire falling on the field, highlighting negligence: citing the duty of the electricity board to maintain lines and the negligence involved.
Related cases under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885, extend this to damages from lines or towers. Section 16(3) considers factors like land situs, line distance, and lost usage rights for diminishing land value and crop/tree loss. One ruling noted: Compensation for diminution value of land and loss of crops and trees... Specific case of landlord that he lost value of crops to an extent of Rs.1,50,000/- - Diminishing value of land utilized is Rs.6,00,000/-... Yet, without contra evidence, the court's 50% deduction on market value was upheld. Executive Engineer Bruhath Kamagari Vibhaga KPTCL (Bescom) VS Basavarajappa S/o late Channamallapa - 2018 Supreme(Kar) 427
No rigid formula exists, but courts stress actual loss quantification via credible proof like photos, expert reports, or yield comparisons. Speculative claims fail. In tower installation disputes, full compensation is mandated for uncultivable land: the obligation of the respondent authorities to pay full compensation for any damage sustained by the exercise of powers related to the installation of the towers. Section 10(d) of the Telegraph Act requires this. Udai Singh VS State of U. P. Through its Secretary Ministry of Energy, U. P. Government, Lucknow - 2014 Supreme(All) 2817
For supply disputes, Consumer Protection Act cases apply. In S. D. O. `OP` SUB DIVISION VS MUKHTAIR SINGH, complainants alleged deliberate supply cuts to tube wells causing irreparable crop loss: used to switch off the electricity supply to the complainant's tube wells from the transformer to cause irreparable loss and damage to the crops.
Courts show caution:- No credible evidence? Claims rejected. Madan Lal VS Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. - Consumer (2009)- Multiple yield factors? Must isolate electricity's role.- Future losses? Need solid proof.
In SURESH KUMAR SAINI VS POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA - 2015 Supreme(UK) 37, petitions failed without proving line route faults, but compensation for crop/tree damage was affirmed: petitioner shall get compensation for the loss/damage of crops, trees or structure.
Alternative remedies often direct to District Judges under Telegraph Act Section 16(3). One writ was dismissed: the petitioner may approach the District judge for redressal of his grievances. G. Elaiyaperumal VS Superintendent of Engineer, Grid (TNEB) - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 1508
Other disputes mirror these principles. In Rotex Automation Ltd. VS United India Insurance Co. Ltd., surveyor reports held evidentiary value for loss claims, unlike private accountants: Report given by Surveyor has to be given due value. Delays by providers can lead to costs.
Environmental rules in mining contexts also require compensating crop losses: undertake to ensure minimum losses to the agriculture crops and undertake to contribute suitably for compensation. Dinesh Bothra VS State of Rajasthan - 2015 Supreme(Raj) 271
For grids, Electricity Act 2003 Section 164 allows entry, but compensation follows: directs the petitioner to file an application... assess the compensation after taking into consideration the damage caused to the crops. G. Elaiyaperumal VS Superintendent of Engineer, Grid (TNEB) - 2014 Supreme(Mad) 1508
To enhance awards:- Gather Evidence: Photos, videos, yield records, expert assessments, witness statements.- Prove Causation: Link damage directly to negligence (e.g., logs of outages).- Quantify Precisely: Use market values, deduct depreciation if applicable.- File Promptly: Use Consumer Forums, District Courts, or writs judiciously.- Providers' Side: Maintain infrastructure; document defenses.
Legal practitioners should emphasize causation and proof, as courts favor well-documented claims. TEJPAL VS HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - Consumer (1997)B. S. E. S. RAJDHANI POWER LIMITED VS PRIT SINGH - Consumer (2004)
Farmers facing electricity-related crop losses can leverage these rulings to seek fair redress. Stay informed, document diligently, and seek professional guidance to navigate claims effectively.
(After calculation, His Lordship proceeded :) ... By adding up the total loss as above, the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 5911/-. ... 34. ... Alternatively, it claimed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on the basis of the right to enhance rates under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. ... It must satisfy the Court both as to the, fact of damage and as to its amount when it claims substantial damages. ... As much certainty and particularity must be insisted on, both in pleading and proof of #HL_S....
vii) Re-examine the evidence relating to crops loss, borewell damage and extent of land affected and pass a reasoned and speaking order. viii) All the contentions of the parties are kept open. ... According to the petitioner, the laying of transmission line resulted in destruction of standing crops, damage to borewell, restriction on use of land beneath the corridor area and diminution in the value of the land. 3. ... The respondents, for the purpose of transmission of elect....
The record reveals that the petitioner was paid adequate compensation for the damage of trees and crops as mentioned above and there is no need of any enhancement. 10. ... The respondent No. 2 was paid an amount of Rs. 2,44,838.00/- (Rupees Two Lakhs forty Four thousand Eight Hundred and thirty Eight Only) and Rs. 10,202.00/- (Rupees ten Thousand two Hundred and Two only) as compensation in respect of surface damages like loss of trees and plant etc. ... The case is partly allowed with direction that th....
The record reveals that the petitioner was paid adequate compensation for the damage of trees and crops as mentioned above and there is no need of any enhancement. 10. ... The respondent No. 2 was paid an amount of Rs. 51,600.00/-(Rupees Fifty One Thousand and Six Hundred Only) as compensation in respect of surface damages like loss of trees and plant etc. ... The case is partly allowed with direction that the opposite party No. 1, the Manager, North Easter Transmission Company Ltd. shall pay the #HL_ST....
The record reveals that the petitioner was paid adequate compensation for the damage of trees and crops as mentioned above and there is no need of any enhancement. 10. ... The respondent No. 2 was paid an amount of Rs. 50,800.00 (Rupees Fifty Thousand and Eight Hundred Only) as compensation in respect of surface damages like loss of trees and plant etc. ... The case is partly allowed with direction that the opposite party No. 1, the Manager, North Easter Transmission Company Ltd. shall pay the #HL_START....
Villarreal, 873 N.W.2d at 728 (citation omitted). Phoenix next argues that Hallmark acted in bad faith when it delayed paying the total amount owed under the policy for damage sustained to Phoenix’s wiring and equipment. ... Further, Jones omitted the $124,800 amount (for removal and installation of wiring and equipment) from his calculation for the reasons discussed above. ... This loss included damage to buildings, wiring, equipment, and other materials loca....
No calculation was presented, however, using that methodology for the entirety of the loss (that is, the loss attributable to both wind and flood damage). ... Fidelity’s adjuster inspected the damage and prepared a proof of loss—“a policyholder’s statement of the amount of money being requested, signed to and sworn to by the policyholder with documentation to support the amount requested” 1—that the Pyes signed. ... A(1) 2 The court held tha....
No calculation was presented, however, using that methodology for the entirety of the loss (that is, the loss attributable to both wind and flood damage). ... loss amount for double recovery purposes. ... In assessing the flood damage to the property at $147,340.01, the district court properly used such a replacement cost minus depreciation calculation, the one submitted by Crawford. ... should the total loss amount#HL_END....
The petitioner’s land is dry land and he is yielding all the crops after erection of line also. There is no loss or damage caused to the petitioner and hence sought for dismissal of the petition. ... 5. ... The respondents have paid only Rs.4,260/, meager amount of compensation and it is stated that the land of the petitioner is black fertile agricultural land and he has grown groundnut crops. ... Whether the petitioners in Misc. 68/11 are entitled for compensation un....
It has further been submitted that when the petitioner approached the Corporation seeking payment of compensation for the loss sufferred by him, a sum of Rs.6000/- towards loss of paddy crops and an amount of Rs.13000/- for the loss of crops of Mung and Arhar etc. were paid to the petitioner. ... It is alleged that apart from paying meager compensation for the loss of the crops, no amount has been....
It is the case of the complainants that the O.P. Nos. 2 to 4 in collusion with O.P. No. 5 used to switch off the electricity supply to the complainant's tube wells from the transformer to cause irreparable loss and damage to the crops of the complainants. Due to the act of the O.Ps., the complainants were unable to run their tube well and irrigate their fields.
In response to the said letter, reply was sent on 15.05.2000, wherein it has specifically referred to the original claim letter dated 20.05.1997, wherein it was very much described about the damage to the property. He has not disputed, but has admitted the damage to the property. He did not deny the consequential loss due to damage of the property and did not advise the OP for grant of award of these claims. After the lapse of more than 3 years, i.e., April, 2000, for the first time, the OP, vide its letter dated 24.04.2000, came out with a new story that Complainant’s LOP ....
(xii) maintain the bench height and slope as per the Metalliferous Mines Regulation, 1961, as amended from time to time; (xiii) maintain the overall slope of mine below 45 degrees; (xi) undertake to ensure minimum losses to the agriculture crops and undertake to contribute suitably for compensation to the loss / damage to the crops; (x) ensure that personnel working in dusty areas shall wear protective respiratory devices and they shall also be provided with adequate training and information on safety, environment and health aspects;
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate as to what is the illegality or technical fault with the route of the transmission line, in question. Moreover, petitioner shall get compensation for the loss/damage of crops, trees or structure. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition.
Hence, this Court directs the petitioner to file an application before the respondents for compensation and after receipt of the said application for compensation, the respondents shall assess the compensation after taking into consideration the damage caused to the crops and the extent of loss caused due to use of land for erection of the said High voltage electricity grid. However, the respondents are at liberty to proceed further in completion of their project over the said land. However, the aggrieved petitioner is entitled to receive adequate compensation from the resp....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
