Judgment :- MaharashtraState Electricity Board- now trifurcated into three companies, the appellants herein, have challenged the judgment and decree dated 28.2.1994 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Sr.Dn., Yavatmal, in Special Civil Suit No. 2 of 1991, by which the appellants were held jointly and severally liable to make payment of compensation at the rate of Rs.8.50 per plant of banana for 20,500 banana plants with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum thereon from the date of decree till realization. 2. FACTS : Respondents/plaintiffs- father and son the farmers from village Asola, district Yavatmal filed a suit claiming damages from the appellants. They stated that they had planted 7,500 banana plants in field Survey No. 70/1 and 13,000 banana plants in field Survey No.37/2, i.e. 20,500 plants in the agricultural year 1987-88. They have number of wells in their land and electric motor pumps are fixed with M.S.E.B. Electric supply. Plantation was made in June 1987 but there was irregular supply of electricity by M.S.E.B. which caused damage to the crop growth. Banana plants yield income after 10 months and more and more water is required when the yield starts, which in fact started from April 1988. It was most essential to supply plenty of water to the plants with an interval of three days. However, the supply of electricity during the said important period was very irregular and therefore the plaintiffs went on making complaints after complaints right from the wireman to Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer of M.S.E.B. and Tahsildar and Collector of the district. None bothered to listen the grievances. Then the news was published in newspaper with photographs. The Collector having read the news and asked the Ground Surveyor as well as Officers from Horticulture Department to know the correct situation on the spot. Both the officers submitted report. The Tahsildar also woke up and sent the Talathi to visit the spot and submit his report. Talathi inspected the spot and reported that there was 12 ft. water in the wells during summer but because of non-supply of electricity, this water could not be taken out for irrigation. Due to hot summer the entire plantation was burnt and thereby the respondents/plaintiffs suffered loss of Rs.3,00,7000/-. Thus they filed suit claiming damages to the tune of Rs. three lacs after making due correspondence with M.S.E.B., Collector and State Government. 3. Due to hot summer the entire plantation was burnt and thereby the respondents/plaintiffs suffered loss of Rs.3,00,7000/-. Thus they filed suit claiming damages to the tune of Rs. three lacs after making due correspondence with M.S.E.B., Collector and State Government. 3. Appellants entered appearance and filed written statement denying the averments. They had set up a specific defence that there was no water in any of the wells and there was no disturbance in the supply of electricity, as claimed by the respondents/plaintiffs. The appellants went to the extent of asking compensatory costs for filing frivolous suit. They also stated that there were in all seven wells in various fields of the plaintiffs and their relatives which were well connected with the pipes underground and such arrangement is made that water could be used from in any of the fields. According to the appellants, the complaints made were false and that enquiry was held by M.S.E.B. in the matter and after enquiry it was found that the complaints were false. Thereafter parties went on trial. The plaintiffs produced innumerable documents and the appellant/defendant also produced some documents. Oral evidence was also adduced. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments decreed the suit, hence this first appeal. 4. SUBMISSIONS : In support of appeal, Mr.Moharir learned counsel, made the following submissions – (i) The learned trial Court committed error in ignoring the documentary evidence filed by M.S.E.B. showing the spot reading in relation to supply of electricity, which documentary evidence was filed on record and proved by D.W.1 Pradip-Assistant Engineer. The evidence of D.W.1 Pradip has been ignored by the trial court for no reason. (ii) the trial court committed an error in relying upon the documentary as well as oral evidence tendered by the plaintiffs. (iii) the trial Court ought to have held that the suit was vexatious, false and ought to have imposed costs of Rs.5,000/-. The trial court erred in awarding Rs. three lacs when there was no evidence to show that the said loss was caused. No accounts were produced nor any satisfactory evidence was produced by the respondents/plaintiffs. (iv) as per the agreement with the M.S.E.B., and in particular clause (11), the appellants are not liable to make good the loss, if at all caused. 5. Per contra, Mr.Karia, learned counsel for the respondents, supported the impugned judgment and decree. 6. No accounts were produced nor any satisfactory evidence was produced by the respondents/plaintiffs. (iv) as per the agreement with the M.S.E.B., and in particular clause (11), the appellants are not liable to make good the loss, if at all caused. 5. Per contra, Mr.Karia, learned counsel for the respondents, supported the impugned judgment and decree. 6. I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree. Both the counsel took me through the documentary as well as oral evidence of the parties. Accordingly, I have gone through the entire evidence including the evidence of plaintiffs and that of defendant. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties, the following points arise for my consideration in this appeal - (i) Whether clause 11 of the agreement between the appellants and respondents disabled plaintiffs from claiming damages due to interruption or discontinuation of electric supply to respondents-consumer? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs proved that the standing Banana crop with 20,500 plants in Survey Nos. 70/1 and 37/2 at village Asola were damaged/destroyed completely due to high, irregular and erratic electric supply for lifting water from the wells for irrigating the Banana plantations? (iii) Whether the appellants/ defendants proved that the supply of electricity was irregular with hardly any sort of discontinuance thereof? (iv) Whether the finding recorded by the trial court awarding damages in favour of respondents/ plaintiffs to the extent of Rs. three lacs, i.e. Rs.8.50 per Banana plant is legal, correct and proper? 7. CONSIDERATION : The present lisbetween Maharashtra State Electricity Board and the plaintiffs depicts a sorry state of affairs in relation to manner of supply of electricity particularly to the farmers in Vidarbha region who solely depend on supply of electricity to irrigate the fields. Summer in Vidarbha region is very hot. It is a matter of serious concern that the farmers in Vidarbha region have all the time been deprived of the regular supply of electricity, even sofar as farming activity is concerned, as and when needed or desperately needed which has a direct effect on the agricultural production and the income of farmers. Erratic or irregular or no supply of electricity for many hours or days has been a regular feature in the rural area of Vidarbha region for the last many years directly affecting the farmers in this region. Erratic or irregular or no supply of electricity for many hours or days has been a regular feature in the rural area of Vidarbha region for the last many years directly affecting the farmers in this region. The irony of fate is that major coal supply for production of electricity is made by Vidarbha region which is consequently also at the receiving end with heavy pollution due to coal mining and production of electricity from coal. As a matter of fact, large number of farmers have actually been affected. Surprisingly enough, hardly farmers endeavour to go to the Court of law asking for damages. The reasons are obvious, namely expenses for payment of court-fees, engaging services of advocate, delay in disposal of the suit and attending all the dates of hearing at cost. That is the reason why the farmers do not go to the Court but suffer without any murmur. The respondents/ plaintiffs however knocked the doors of the Court and succeeded in the suit. The farmers in Vidarbha region have been neglected for years together and Maharashtra State Electricity Board has been one of the major culprits. In DalmiaCement (Bharat) Ltd. v. Union of India – (1996) 10 SCC 104 , the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the constitutional obligation of the State towards agriculture and farmers in para 21 of the judgment as under : “Article 38 of the Constitution enjoins the State to strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as it may, the social order in which justice- social, economic and political- shall, inform all the institutions of the national life striving to minimise inequalities in income and endeavour to eliminate inequalities in status, facilities, opportunities amongst individuals and groups of people residing in different areas or engaged in different avocations. As stated earlier, agriculture is the mainstay of rural economy and empowerment of the agriculturists. Agriculture, therefore, is an industry. To the tiller of the soil, livelihood depends on the production and return of the agricultural produce and sustained agro-economic growth. The climatic conditions throughout Bharat are not uniform. They vary from tropical to moderate conditions. Tillers of the soil being in unorganised sector, their voice is scarcely heard and was not even remotely voiced in these cases. Their fundamental right to cultivation is as a part of right to livelihood. The climatic conditions throughout Bharat are not uniform. They vary from tropical to moderate conditions. Tillers of the soil being in unorganised sector, their voice is scarcely heard and was not even remotely voiced in these cases. Their fundamental right to cultivation is as a part of right to livelihood. It is a bastion of economic and social justice envisaged in the Preamble and Article 38 of the Constitution.” 8. With the above preface, I proceed to discuss the points for determination. As to Point No. 1: - I have gone through clause 11 of the agreement relating to interruption and supply of electricity. Perusal of the said clause, in my opinion, has whatsoever no concern with the supply of electricity to farmers for lifting water from the well. It has been rightly held by the trial Court that the said clause applies to industrial equipments in the industrial plants, which if got damaged eventually due to irregular electric supply, the consumer would not be able to claim damages. I do not find anything wrong in the finding recorded by the trial Court that the said clause does not apply to the farmers who have standing crops in the fields for irrigation from the well with the help of electric supply. Hence, I answer point no. (i) in the negative. 9. As to point no. (ii), the respondents/ plaintiffs examined as many as six witnesses in support of their case and filed many documents. From the evidence of the witnesses it is clear that the respondents/farmers had in all seven wells in the fields adjoining each other with other relatives and there was a grid well connected for connecting water from one or the other well. The farming area covered with this arrangement of irrigation is a pretty large area. This Court finds that there are a few farmers in this Vidarbha region with such an organized net work for providing irrigation with connected grid for supply from seven different wells. What is painful is that despite such an organized net work brought into existence by the respondents and their relatives for farming, the appellants/electricity board completely destroyed their net work for the period in question by not providing electric supply regularly and as and when desperately needed for irrigating the Banana plantation for days together. What is painful is that despite such an organized net work brought into existence by the respondents and their relatives for farming, the appellants/electricity board completely destroyed their net work for the period in question by not providing electric supply regularly and as and when desperately needed for irrigating the Banana plantation for days together. In other words, though the respondents could cross over all other difficulties faced by the farmers in this region, the appellants spoiled their entire work. The evidence of the witnesses examined on this point about electric supply is contemporaneous with the documents, as many as 84 in number, duly proved on record about disorderly conduct exhibited by the appellants, after plantations of Banana was made. The respondents/plaintiffs since badly needed supply of electricity for lifting water from the wells for irrigating Banana plantations. 10. I have gone through all the documents and the complaints made by the plaintiffs from time to time and this Court expresses dismay over the manner in which the appellants treated the respondents/farmers and other villagers. The very first complaint (Ex.29) is dated 22.9.1986 of forewarning which has been duly proved by P.W.1 Gopal. It is stated therein that there is always disconnection from D.P with the result the workers who irrigate the farms are required to sit idle and the respondents/farmers are required to bear the burden of their wages without work. The wireman Shri Durge takes 2-3 days time for putting the fuse(s) and he negligently does not do the work and therefore some other person in place of Shri Durge should be deputed. On 9.3.1987 complaint (Ex.30) giving details of non supply of electricity for irrigation for more than nine hours at a time was given. Ex.31 complaint dated 17.5.1987, i.e. in the middle of hot summer in this region, states that one phase on D.P. was completely closed from 14.5.1987 and there was no wireman in the village and it became impossible to irrigate. When the respondent had gone to Pahur office of Electricity Board on 1.5.1987, no one was present in the office and, therefore complaint Ex.31 was made on 18.5.1987. When the respondent had gone to Pahur office of Electricity Board on 1.5.1987, no one was present in the office and, therefore complaint Ex.31 was made on 18.5.1987. Another complaint to the appellants was made on 19.5.1987 with copy to Chief Minister, Power Minister and Chairman of Electricity Board and it was pleaded that there was no electric supply since 14.5.1987 and the farmers had personally met the Engineer Shri Bangad but to no use. By complaint (Ex.51) dated 21.6.1987 it was informed that there was no improvement. The same position continued throughout the year. From February 1988, the banana plants started bearing fruits and more water was required. But none paid attention and finally the entire plantation burnt in April/May of 1988. On 14.6.1988 a detailed complaint (Ex.36) to the Collector, Superintending Engineer of Electricity Board, Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Power Minister and Chairman of Electricity Board was made. He wailed therein saying that his entire family is dependent on agriculture and he lost the entire crop of 20,500 plants. None took cognizance of his several repeated complaints. Officers of Maharashtra State Electricity Board and Government acted cruelly to him and his family. Another complaint (Ex.37) was made pointing out that there was no electricity from 16.6.1988 to 22.6.1988. All these letters and complaints up to Ex.86 filed by the respondents have been duly proved and what is most surprising is that though he complained to Chief Minister, Power Minister, Superintending Engineer, the Chairman of the Electricity Board, none at all bothered to look into the grievance. After the entire plantation was burnt, the Government machinery woke up. The Tahsildar had directed the Talathi to make spot inspection and his report corroborated the case of the plaintiffs about the actual state of affairs. Thereafter since the appellants raised a frivolous issue about want of water in the wells, an officer from Ground Survey of India was deputed by the Collector, who was also examined in the Court who testified that there was good storage shortage of water in the well but for want of electric supply no irrigation could be done. There are large number of photographs placed on record. To conclude, the oral as well as documentary evidence clearly show that electric supply by the appellants was not only erratic but most irregular and caused direct loss to the respondents. 11. There are large number of photographs placed on record. To conclude, the oral as well as documentary evidence clearly show that electric supply by the appellants was not only erratic but most irregular and caused direct loss to the respondents. 11. The appellants in order to prove its case that there was no erratic supply of electricity or discontinuance of electric supply, examined its Junior Engineer Pradip Nichal (D.W.1). He filed one document (Ex.170). I have examined the said document Ex.170 and also gone through the cross-examination of this witness. This witness claimed that Ex.170 was prepared on the spot. Perusal of the said document, in my opinion, is nothing but a home work done by the said witness Pradip Nichal who attempted to support the case of the appellants. There is no panch witness or any witness to this document. This document does not mention on which dates the visits were made to find out the manner of supply of electricity. These two pages of Ex.170 are torn from some register with page Nos. 122 and 123. The first and second pages show the dates and time of failure and total hours for February, March, April and May, 1988. These loose papers were handwritten by him and Nilkanth on the basis of recitals in the fuse call and interruption register and they were never produced. His evidence is falsified by the following his cross-examination in para 10 – “For about 5 to 10 occasions from March 88 onwards I had visited these fields. Even in August 88, I had visited the fields of the plaintiff. I have kept writing to this effect in my diary. However, that dairy is not brought by me today and therefore I am unable to say the exact date of my visit. I had not shown that diary to my advocate. This fact was disclosed by me before starting the evidence, that is about the diary. This fact was also not told by me at the time of filing the written statement. Even it is not mentioned in the written statement that for about 5 to 10 occasions I had visited the field of the plaintiff.” The first page of Ex.170 shows that on the left side endorsement is made that the same to be get typed but the record does not show any such typed page. Even it is not mentioned in the written statement that for about 5 to 10 occasions I had visited the field of the plaintiff.” The first page of Ex.170 shows that on the left side endorsement is made that the same to be get typed but the record does not show any such typed page. This show how casually appellant- M.S.E.B. tried to justify its stand by tendering such type of bogus evidence. It is thus clear that the appellants miserably failed to prove that the electric supply was not irregular. On the contrary, respondents clearly proved about repeated irregular and discontinuance of electric supply. Hence, points no. (ii) and (iii) are answered accordingly. 12. The respondents claimed damages at the rate of Rs.15/- per tree for 20,500 banana plants. The trial Court granted damages at the rate of Rs.8.50 per tree. The evidence tendered by the respondents/ plaintiffs on this point of quantum and damages is of P.W.5 Mohammad Bashir- fruit merchant from Yeotmal, who stated that he used to purchase Banana crop from the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 19/- per tree. The trial Court upon over all appreciation of evidence and taking into consideration the fact that the appellants did not at all contest the claim about quantum of damages by leading evidence in rebuttal or otherwise awarded the damages. Awarding almost half of the claim made by the respondents, i.e. Rs.8.50 in place of Rs.19/- per tree, I do not find any fault with the said reason given by the trial Court since there is evidence in support of the said finding of fact, with which I completely agree. Hence, I answer point no. (iv) in affirmative. 13. In the result, I do not find any merit in the present first appeal. Hence, the following order. ORDER (i) First Appeal No. 528 of 1994 is dismissed with costs. (ii) Decree be drawn up accordingly.