E ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ANOTHER v. DHAMSING CHANDARSING RATHOD
Case Details
{1} 926-WP-71-2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.71 OF 2018 MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD THROUGH THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER AND ANOTHER VERSUS DHAMSING CHANDARSING RATHOD ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Sanjay Mundhe Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Sachin Joshi i/by. Mr. Sushant Yeramwar ....... [CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] ORDER : DATE : 23 rd MARCH, 2022 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the award passed by the permanent lokadalat in Prelitigation Application No. 12/2016, whereby the petitioners are directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent. 2. On 15.01.2016, respondent’s 11 months old sugarcane crop standing in two acres land was burnt. According to the
Legal Reasoning
respondent, the fire was due to short circuit. The panchnama of the same was conducted by Tahsildar on 16.01.2016 and the statements of adjoining land owners were also recorded. The Deputy Engineer of Bhagyawant Punde {2} 926-WP-71-2018 Petitioner-Company intimated the incident to the Electrical Inspector in a prescribed proforma. In clause 10; ‘detail cause leading to the accident’- it is mentioned as ‘may be sparking’. The said form is forwarded to the Electrical Inspector on 18.01.2016, which is received by the Electrical Inspector on 19.01.2016. 3. The respondent approached the permanent lokadalat by filing the said prelitigation application in the month of March-2016. The petitioners resisted the application by filing say. The petitioners denied that the cause of accident is due to short circuit and contended that there is no evidence to show that the said fire was due to the short circuit in the electricity lines. The application to Tehsil office and complaint to police station since are the statements of the respondent, they cannot be relied upon. The spot panchnama also is not admitted by the petitioners and according to the petitioners it does not prove the cause of catching fire. The petitioners contended that the competent authority is a Electrical Inspector and there is no report of the Electrical Inspector who is a independent authority. The petitioners therefore, contended that the application is filed mentioning false cause and the same is without any substance. It is filed only for extracting the Bhagyawant Punde {3} 926-WP-71-2018 compensation from MSEDCL. The real cause will come up before the Court as and when the report of Electrical Inspector is received. 4. The lokadalat after considering the evidence placed on record including the report of the Electrical Inspector, awarded the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent along with 9% interest per annum from the date of application till the realisation of the claim amount, along with cost of Rs. 2,000/-. This award is impugned in the present petition. 5. Heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and learned advocate for the respondent. 6. The learned advocate for the petitioners vehemently assailed the impugned award contending that the incident occurred on 15.01.2016 and the Electrical Inspector has failed to submit the report within stipulated time. The report is submitted by him after 8-9 months and the same, therefore, ought not to have been relied upon by the lokadalat. By placing reliance on Sub Section 3(c) Section 22(C) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, learned advocate submits that the report was not communicated by the lokadalat to the petitioners to Bhagyawant Punde enable the petitioner to present their reply thereto and on this ground {4} 926-WP-71-2018 also the impugned award is vitiated. 7. The learned advocate for the respondent supports the impugned award by pointing out that in the report submitted by the Deputy Engineer of Petitioner-Company the cause of incident is shown as ‘may be sparking’. He therefore, submits that the lokadalat was justified in passing the impugned award and no fault can be found with the same and hence, the petition may be dismissed. 8. The record indicates that the sugarcane crop of respondent standing in 2 acres was burnt in fire on 15.01.2016. The Tahsildar conducted the panchama of the said incident on 16.01.2016. It is mentioned in the panchnama that the incident occurred due to short circuit. Statements of adjoining land owners to that effect are recorded at the time of the panchnama. 9. The Electrical Inspector by visiting the spot of incident arrived at a conclusion that in the field of respondent three phase four wires LT line of MSEDCL is passing through. The four wires of LT line were loose because of which distance between two phase (R & Y Bhagyawant Punde {5} 926-WP-71-2018 conductor) was reduced to a great extent. On 15.01.2016 in between 2.30 to 3.00, two phase conductors touched each other due to which sparking occurred and due to that sugarcane crop caught fire. The respondent has suffered loss and the petitioners are liable to pay compensation for the same. The impugned award is passed by the lokadalat by placing reliance on this report. 10. Violation of Sub Section 3(c) Section 22(C) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, does vitiate the impugned award, as at no point of time it was the case of the petitioners that the position of the electric wires and conductors as on 15.1.2016 was changed at subsequent point of time. The petitioners failed to make out such case before the lokadalat. The report lodged by the respondent about the incident in the police station and statements recorded pursuant to the same, the panchnama conducted by Tahsildar and the statements of adjoining land owners, so also the report of Electrical Inspector proves the case of the respondent and this Court is of the opinion that the lokadalat was justified in awarding compensation to the respondent. Bhagyawant Punde {6} 926-WP-71-2018 11. Though, it is a fact that the Electrical Inspector has given his report after 9 months of the incident, but on that sole ground it cannot be rejected, as it is not disputed that the respondent’s sugarcane crop standing in two acres was burnt due to fire. There is nothing on record to indicate that the fire took place due to any other reason than the short circuit/sparking. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accept the technical objections raised by the petitioners. 12. In view of the factual conspectus, this Court is of the considered view that the award passed by the lokadalat is just, legal and proper. There is no substance in the challenge raised by the petitioners.
Decision
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI] JUDGE Bhagyawant Punde