1. 1. THE respondent in this appeal filed C.D.No. 76/90 in the District Forum, Mahabubnagar, claiming compensation of Rs. 18,000/- being the
value of the paddy of 120 bags which the complainant used to get from Ac.3.00 every year and for costs.
2. THE case of the complainant is that he owns Ac.5.00 of land in S.No. 105 in Bureddipalle village, Jadgherla Mandal. He got electricity service
connection to the well situated in the said survey number, which was fitted with 5 H.P. motor to draw water. He transplanted paddy crop in three
acres on 2.6.90. On 13.6.90, the transformer through which the power supply was given to the complainant was burnt. On 14.6.90, Neelaiah
came to the village and took away the above said transformer with a plea to replace it. THE helper demanded Rs. 700/- to get the transformer
replaced within twenty four hours. As the complainant and the other villagers failed to pay the amount, the transformer was not replaced till
26.6.90. For want of water for 13 days, the paddy crop raised whithered away and the complainant sustained a loss of Rs. 18,000/-. THE
appellant herein i.e. the first opposite party filed a counter and submitted that the transformer failed on 13.6.1990 and that on 14.6.1990 Neelaiah
informed him about the failure. It was stated that on 15.6.90 the first appellant inspected the spot and as it could not be repaired on the spot as it is
sealed transformer, it was shifted to Mahabubnagar Transformers Repairing Section. As another 630 KVA transformer is not available and as it
was a sealed transformer, it was sent to Hyderabad for repair. On 22.6.90 another transformer was delivered to the opposite party by the
Repairing Section and he shifted the extra transformer to Bhumireddypalle and fitted it on 23.6.90. But the said transformer was brunt on the same
day. As 24.6.90 was a holiday, the first appellant shifted the transformer on 25.6.90 and took delivery of another transformer from first respondent
and installed on the same day on 26.6.90. Thus according to the appellant there was no negligence on their part in installing new transformer and
therefore not liable for payment of any compensation. THE appellant denied that Neelaiah demanded payment of Rs. 700/- to get the transformer
replaced within twenty-four hours. It was further stated that the adjoining land owners who were under the said transformer as consumers and who
raised paddy crop did not complain about any damages to their crops. It is also denied that there is any damage to the crop and that the
transformer at Village Gangapur and Rama talkies were replaced immediately, and that as there were rains during that period, the paddy crop did
not wither away.
P.W.1 the complainant and P.W.2 the neighbour were examined on behalf of the complainant and no documents were marked. On behalf of the
opposite party R.W.1 the first appellant and R.W. 2 the neighbouring land owner are examined and Exs. B.1 to B.4 were marked. The District
Forum on consideration of the evidence on record did not give any finding as to whether Neelaiah demanded a sum of Rs. 700/- for replacing the
transformer within 24 hours and found that the complainant gave Rs. 100/- towards expenses for restoration of power supply. But it is observed
that R.W.2, Krishna Reddy, demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- from the complainant towards expenses for restoration of current supply and it found
that the appellants have failed to replace the transformer immediately and that therefore there was negligence on their part. It accordingly awarded
a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as costs.
Aggrieved by the same, the opposite party preferred this appeal. During the pendency of the appeal this Court passed modified interim order on
7.11.92 granting stay on condition of depositing the costs within three weeks from that day. Accordingly the costs were deposited.
3. SRI C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, the learned standing Counsel for the Electricity Board, contended that firstly, there was no negligence on the part
of the department in replacing the transformer. Secondly, there were rains during that period and the complainant did not suffer any loss of crop on
account of the failure of power supply. Thirdly that there was also no loss of crop as admittedly, the ryots who raised the paddy crop under the
same transformer did not complain any loss of crop and also did not claim any damages; Lastly, that under conditions of supply No. 41 the Board
shall not be responsible for any loss or inconvenience occasioned to any consumer by any interruption of supply of any kind whatever be the
reason therefor and that therefore the complaint itself is not maintainable.
Adverting to the first contention the substance of the case of the complainant is that the transformer failed on 13.6.90 and that he and other farmers
did not agree for payment of Rs. 700/- to Neelaiah, the linesman, that they have delayed in replacing the transformer and consequently he suffered
loss. In the complaint it was stated that Neelaiah demanded from the complainant a sum of Rs. 700/- to get the transformer replaced within 24
hours. But P.W.I the complainant in his evidence stated that the helper demanded Rs. 750/-. P.W.I in his evidence stated that the ""Helper,
Neelaiah did not ask me to pay Rs. 750/-. The brother of Krishna Reddy told me that Neelaiah demanded Rs. 750/-."" Thus, it is evident that
P.W.1 was merely informed by somebody else that helper demanded Rs. 750/-. The brother of Krishna Reddy, who is said to have informed the
complainant, about the demand, was not examined. Krishna Reddy gave an affidavit on 9.8.90. In the said affidavit it is not mentioned that
Neelaiah demanded a payment of Rs. 750/- In the cross-examination of R.W.2 it was suggested to Krishna Reddy that he collected Rs. 100/-
from the complainant towards expenses and not from others. Having regard to the above evidence it cannot be said that the complainant has
established his case that Neelaiah demanded a sum of Rs. 700/- or 750/- for replacing the transformer within twenty four hours and that therefore
the very basis of the complainants'' case that delay in replacing the transformer is due to the fact that the amount demanded was not paid is highly
doubtful We are not inclined to accept the version of the complainant in this regard. It is not in dispute that the transformer was burnt on 13.6.90
and it was finally replaced on 26.6.90. The Assistant Engineer, who was examined as R.W.1 stated in his evidence that on 14.6.90 he learnt from
the Assistant Line Man, that one of the phase of the transformer of the complainant''s village is not supplying current, that he immediately sent the
line man who reported that the lines are functioning well but the defect is in the transformer. Thereupon on 15.6.90 R.W.1 went to the village and
inspected the transformer as it is sealed transformer, it could not be repaired on the spot and therefore it was shifted in the departmental van to
Mahabubnagar to A.D.Es Office for repair. He was informed in the A.D.Es office that the transformer must be sent to Hyderabad for repair as it
was a sealed transformer. As there was no extra transformer in A.D.Es Office, he was informed that the A.D.Es office will send information after
getting the transformer repaired. On 22.6.90 the A.D.Es office informed him that extra transformer is available with him. R.W.1 therefore shifted
the extra transformer in a rented lorry and fixed iton23.6.90. The said transformer did not function and was burnt on the same day. As 24.6.90
was a holiday he took the transformer on 25.6.90 and fixed another transformer. The transformer is working since that day. This version is
supported by the affidavits filed by Krishna Reddy and Sivarami Reddy which are Exs., B.3 and B.4 He denied in the cross-examination, the
suggestion about demanding of Rs. 750/- by Neelaiah and also the suggestion that the transformer at Gangapur and Rama talkis at Jedcherla were
replaced immediately. There was also no suggestion by the complainant that there was no electricity supply till 3.7.90. There is no evidence or
record to show on behalf of the complainant that R.W.1 did not return the transformer for repair and that inspite of another transformer being
available he did not fix the same at an early date. Hence we are not inclined to hold that there is any negligence or avoidable delay on the part of
the opposite parties.
4. ADVERTING to the second and third contentions, it was stated in the counter that during the period from 13.6,90 to 26.6.90 there were rains
intermittantly and the crop did not require further water. Adjoining land owners also did not complain any damages. In the affidavit filed by Sivaram
Reddy, Ex.B.3 it was stated that he has raised paddy crop under the same well and that from 14.6.90 there were intermittant rains and the crops
were not spoiled between the period from 14.6.90 to 26.6.90. In the affidavit filed by Krishna Reddy, Ex.B.4 he has stated that during those days
when there was no power supply, there were intermittant rains and the crops were not much damaged. In the cross-examination of the said
Krishna Reddy as R.W.2 nothing was elicited to discredit the affidavits in the evidence. It is evident from the affidavits Exs.B.3 and B.4 and also
from the cross-examination of Krishna Reddy that although they raised paddy crop under the same well they have not suffered any damage and
did not make any complaint that they suffered damage. No doubt P.W.2 stated in his evidence that the paddy crop of the complainant was
damaged. But it is evident that he did not raise any paddy crop and he also did not say about the rains. He surprisingly stated that the complainant
could not irrigate for 20 days while as even according to the complainant the transformer failed only between 13.6.90 to 25.6.90 i.e. for a period
of 13 days. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to place much reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. Moreover, the version of the
respondents is supported by the certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, dt. 12.9.90 in which he mentioned that Mandal Revenue
Inspector conducted a spot enquiry with regard to the Joss of crop by the complainant after 15 days of transplantation and it was stated that during
that period i.e. from 14.6.90 to 25.6.90 rains have covered the crop and that the rain 24 mm was recorded during that period. Ex.B.2 the
mediators'' report merely shows that the loss of crop of 20% was on account of weeds. We, therefore, hold that there was rainfall during that
period and the complainant did not suffer any damage of crop and the version that there is total loss of crop cannot be believed.
It is lastly contended that in view of the provisions of condition No. 41 of the terms, and conditions of Supply, the complainant is not entitled to
claim any damages. The learned Counsel for the Electricity Board, relied on the decision in Grindwell Norton Limited v. A.P. State Electricity
Board. Hyderabad and Others 1 AIR 1989 AP 14 where it was held that under Condition No. 41 even if there is interruption or curtailment of
supply of power, the consumer is not relieved of his obligation to pay monthly minimum charges payable under agreement. As we have found on
merits that there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties and no damage of crop was also suffered it is not necessary for us to decide
whether the complaint is maintainable before the Dist. Forum in view of the provisions of condition No. 41 of the Conditions of Supply.
In the result we allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum.
5. ALTHOUGH there is no proof of extent of damage suffered by the complainant regarding paddy crop and even according to the witnesses as
there are rains during the period of failure of power supply and as the complainant suffered anxiety, inconvenience on account of delay in
replacement of transformer, we consider it appropriate in the peculiar circumstances of the case that he shall be given an ex-gratia sum of Rs.
500.00. We, therefore, direct that since the amount of Rs. 500.00 was deposited towards costs in the District Forum to the credit of C.D.76/90,
the same may be paid to the complainant towards ex-gratia payment. Appeal allowed.
