The Superintending Engineer (Operation) NPDCL v. Peddapalli Sadaiah

2

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellants are the Opposite Parties and the Respondent is the Complainant in CC.No.216/2019.

[

3. Briefly stated, the facts are that - The Complainant by name P.Sadaiah, S/o. Hanumaiah is cultivating vegetables in his land situated in Survey No.242E and area being 0.30 hectares. He is the Consumer of the Opposite Parties vide SC.No.847025-205 at Miyapur Village. Due to the heavy rains on 17th & 18th April, 2019, the electric poles and transformer were damaged and there was no power supply and the Opposite Parties took 30 days to restore the power supply resulting in damage of his crop. He made representation along with 20 other farmers to the concerned officials for early restoration of supply. As the crop was totally damaged, the agriculture/Horticultural Officers visited and gave the certificate of damage dated 30.05.2019. The present complaint is filed seeking compensation for loss of crop due to the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties.

4. The Opposite Parties submit that the true facts are that the heavy rains with gale and wind caused huge damage to the distribution network on 17^th& 18^thApril, 2019 in Sultanabad operation section area. This has not happened in 30 years in TSNPDCL history. A total of 32 poles were damaged in Kothapalli Village in LT Line of Rural East, Peddapalli Section. In the event of natural calamity, damage to the crop is mainly due to the heavy rains with gale and wind, but the visit by the Horticulture Officer after nearly one month came to a conclusion that the fields dried up due to non-availability of power, which is completely an assumption.

5. The Opposite Parties submitted that the Complainant has to prove that they are owners and possessors of the said survey numbers, raised the crop and due to the negligence of the Opposite Parties the damage was occurred. The Complainant has to prove that the agricultural electricity service connection is in the name of

3

the Complainant. Thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

6. Before the District Commission, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A4 on his behalf. The Opposite Parties filed a memo dated 29.01.2021 stating to treat the Counter Affidavit as evidence affidavit and no documents are marked on behalf of them.

7. The District Commission after hearing and considering the material on record, "allowed the complaint in part and directed the Opposite Parties to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs.14,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint i.e., 19.12.2019 till realization and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of the order."

8. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Commission, the Appellants/Opposite Parties filed the appeal contending that the Commission below had failed to consider the following:

 The District Commission failed to appreciate that the details of interruption of power supply can be certified by the electricity authorities and not by any other authority. District Horticulture and Sericulture Officer of Peddapalli is not a competent authority and the District Commission ought not to have relied upon Ex.A3.

 The District Commission came to erroneous conclusion that the power supply was restored after a gap of (30) days without there being any document produced by the Complainant.

 The District Commission failed to appreciate that as per the Clause 15 of the General Terms and Conditions of Supply, the Company is not responsible for temporarily disruption of supply, where the conditions are beyond their control.  The District Commission failed to record the reports submitted by the Appellants i.e., (1)Feeder wise damage report (2) Distribution (Village wise damage report).

4

 The District Commission failed to appreciate the categorical assertion of the Appellants/Opposite Parties that single phase connection was restored on 19.04.2019 and three phase meters were restored in all parts of the section before

24.05.2019.

9. The docket order dated 19.03.2025 goes to show that - "Long back M/s.Zakir Ali Danish who was the standing counsel of the Appellant was replaced with a new counsel. Since then neither the old counsel nor the new counsel have been appearing before this Commission. Therefore, arguments of the Appellant are treated as heard. Respondent present in person and advanced the arguments. Reserved for orders with a liberty to the Appellant to file written arguments within 3 weeks from today by duly serving copy on the other side."

10. The Appellants/Opposite Parties filed common written arguments for the said batch wherein they have reiterated that there is no deficiency on the part of NPDCL and the incompetence of Ex.A3 was wrongly interpreted and relied upon thereby allowing the complaint. It is a mere assumption on the part of the Horticulture Officer and the Commission below that power was restored after one month. Without restoration of supply for one month would have resulted in severe unrest and all the villagers from the surrounding area would not have kept quiet. It is further emphasized that the Commission below overlooked the two crucial reports submitted by NPDCL and they never appreciated the Force Majeure Clause.

11. On a careful study of the complaint and written version along with the documentary evidence placed before us, the crux of the matter that has to be carefully verified and addressed is - Whether the damage to crop occurred because there was negligence and deficiency on the part of Appellant/Opposite Party in restoring the power supply as contended by the Complainant?

5

12. The Respondent/Complainant has categorically pleaded that due to the heavy rain along with unprecedented gale and wind, there was disruption of power supply on 17^thand 18^thApril, 2019 and despite their representation, it was not restored for 30 days. Their crop was damaged as the Respondent/Complainant could not irrigate his lands. In support of his case, he is relying on Ex.A1-a letter dated 08.06.2019 addressed by the Karimnagar Consumer's Council to the M.D., NPDCL, Hanamkonda and that the loss suffered must be compensated. The letter further states that the inspection report made by the Horticulture/Agricultural Officer is enclosed.

13. Ex.A3 is the letter from Sri K.David Raju, MAO. In this communication he has referred to the undertaking given by the farmer. Sri N.Sudhakar to visit his damaged fields. This letter is dated 13.05.2019 i.e., almost three weeks after the rains on April 17^thand 18^th, 2019. The MAO has visited and submitted his report on 21.05.2019. In this report, he has submitted that the power supply was interrupted for 20 days due to the damage to the electric poles due to the heavy winds on 17^th& 18^thApril, 2019. Since the crops were not irrigated due to the interruption of power supply, the crops of the farmers growing green gram, black gram have dried up.

14. On this basis, the Commission below awarded the compensation to the Respondent/Complainant. The Appellants/Opposite Parties have urged that the supply was restored within one week i.e., by 25.04.2019 and by way of memo filed the rules and regulations of NPDCL and estimate report of two villagers given by D.E., Bellampalli. This was not considered by the Commission below and not marked as documentary evidence and the same has been urged in their grounds of appeal.

15. The farmer/Complainant has, as per the report of MAO, lost his crops but the exact extent of loss is not specified. Whether it is total loss or a partial loss. We also consider it important to refer to the documents filed by the Appellants/Opposite Parties that were

6

not taken into account by the Commission below. In their rules and regulations, the Appellants/Opposite Parties have contended that the time frame to give supply shall not be operative on account of cyclones, floods, storms and other occurrences beyond their control. This Force Majeure condition must be taken into account while discussing the grievance suffered by the Complainant.

16. It is also necessary to point out the Respondent/Complainant did not lodge any complaint with the designated officer for interruption of power supply. The Department Officers must then take the action to restore the supply in accordance with the 'standards of performance' regulations issued by the Commission. Nothing is placed on record by the Respondent/Complainant that the complaint was lodged either over telephone or in writing and that there was no response or inadequate response by the specified officer.

17. The Appellants/Opposite Parties cannot be held totally responsible for claim of loss or damage due to Force Majeure conditions. There must be a semblance of balance and justification before placing the entire blame on the lack of power supply which happened because of heavy rain and gale.

18. The Respondent/Complainant did not pursue the complaint in a proper form to pin down the Appellants/Opposite Parties.  The Appellants/Opposite Parties failed to provide the best evidence available with them to support that they restored the supply within 10 days from the date of disruption.

 The Appellants/Opposite Parties being a public authority must come with the true facts and the reasons for delay in restoration with documentary proof.

 The loss suffered by the Respondent/Complainant is ambiguous and he failed to report the disruption of power supply with proof.

7

19. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Parties agreed to the withdrawal of the amount deposited towards the credit of the appeal with accrued interest thereon.

20. In view of the obvious discrepancies on both sides, we are of the considered view that in the interest of justice and for the loss suffered which has not been compensated for a long time, the Respondent/Complainant must be permitted to withdraw the amount deposited to the credit of this appeal along with accrued interest thereon.

21. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the following order is passed in its place:

The Respondent/Complainant is at liberty to withdraw the sum of Rs.9,500/- deposited to the credit of this appeal together with accrued interest thereon, after lapse of Revision time.

Sd/- Sd/- I/C PRESIDENT MEMBER-J Dt: 21.04.2025

UC*