BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD

 F.A.No.123/2013 against C.C.No.90/2011, Dist. Forum, Adilabad. 

Between:

1). Pabba Lachanna,

     S/o.Rajanna, 

     age 55 yrs., Occ: Agriculture,

2). Pabba Posakka,

     W/o.Lachanna, Age 50 yrs.,

     Occ: House Wife

     (Both R/o.Bao Rao Pet,

     R/M Chennur, 

     Dist. Adilabad.

                                         ….Appellant/

                                                                                    Complainant

       And

1.The Asst. Engineer, APNPDCL/AP Transco,

    Chennur , Dist. Adilabad.

2. Divisional Enigneer, APNPDCL.,

    Mancherial Division,

    Dist. Adilabad.

3. The Superintending Engineer,

    APNPDCL , Dwarakanagar, Adilabad,

    Dist. Adilabad (AP).                                               … Respondents/

                                                                                    Opp.parties

Counsel for the Appellant         :   M/s. T.Roshi Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents     :  M/s. P.Vinod Kumar

QUORUM:SRI R.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA RAO,HON’BLE  MEMBER ,

   SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER,

                                                   AND

                     SRI S.BHUJANGA  RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER.

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY,                                                            TWO THOUSAND  FOURTEEN.

Oral Order: (Per  Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member)             

                                                                  ****

                This appeal is    directed  against the order dt.05.02.2013  of the District Forum, Adilabad,     made in C.C.No.90/2011.

The appellants are   the    complainants  and the respondents are the    opp.parties    in C.C.No.90/2011.  For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.    

The brief case of the complainant as set out in the complaint is as follows:

 The complainants are the parents of  deceased Pabba Punnam,  who died on 07.02.2011,  due  to electrocution.   The  complainants’   son  was  hale and hearty and  used to earn Rs.5000/- per month,  by doing  agriculture  work.   The complainants’   son   was  a sole  earning member and he used to   spend  his entire earnings for  his family.  He died due to electrocution,  on account of carelessness  and negligence  of the opp.parties  in  maintaining  proper  electric service connection lines   for    supply  of electricity.     The Police of  Bejjur  P.S. registered the  death of the complainants’  son  as  Cr.No.26/2011  under Sec.174 Cr.P.C.  Due to sudden  death of the  deceased, the complainants  lost  the sole earning member in their  family and they  suffered  a lot mentally and monetarily. Hence, the  complaint seeking direction to the opposite parties  to pay an amount of Rs.4 lakhs  towards the compensation with  interest @ 18%  p.a. from  the date of death  of the deceased  till realisation  and to pay costs.

 Opposite party no.1 filed counter    contending that  they are not aware of the relationship between the complainants and the deceased.  The opp.party submits that on 07.02.2011  at about 8 A.M.   the deceased Pabba  Punnam has  illegally and unauthorisedly worked with  electrical equipment and  was electrocuted and died on the spot.  He is not authorised person to work on electrical lines.  He  had neither obtained permission nor line clearance  either from the Department staff nor from  the concerned sub station.   The death of the deceased was not on account of any negligence or carelessness  of opposite parties in maintaining the electric  lines, but because of the above reason.    The Asst. Div. Engineer (OP)  NPDC of A.P.Ltd.  Chennur   has inspected  the spot and made enquiries and prepared  preliminary report.   The opposite party contends that the deceased died on account of his own negligence  and hence  the opp.parties are not liable to pay any compensation  for the death of the deceased.      The opposite party prayed for dismissal of the  complaint with costs.

The opposite parties 2 and 3 filed memo  adopting the counter filed by the  opposite party no.1.

In order to prove her case, the complainant  filed her  proof affidavit  and  got marked Exs.A1 to  A7. The opposite party  3 filed proof affidavit.  A memo filed stating that   opposite parties 1 and 2   adopt the proof affidavit  filed by opposite party no.3.   Ex.B1 is marked on behalf of the opposite parties. 

The District Forum based on the evidence adduced and pleadings put forward found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties and the deceased  died due to his own negligence.   The District Forum dismissed  the complaint without costs. 

Aggrieved by the said order, the  complainant  preferred this appeal   questioning the legality and validity of the order of the District Forum.

We heard both the  parties and perused the material placed on record.

 Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum  is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?

 It is not in dispute that the deceased  Pabba Punnam    died due to  electrocution on 07.02.2011.   ExA3 attested copy of post mortem examination report proved the said fact. 

 As seen from the complaint,   the complainants have not stated anything  in the complaint and  in their evidence affidavit  as to  when, where and how   the electrocution  took place on 07.02.2011.  It is simply  alleged in the complaint that the deceased   was electrocuted due to careless and negligent acts of the officials of opp.parties 1 to 3, as they failed to maintain proper service.    As stated above, it is not mentioned in the complaint or in the evidence affidavit of the complainant, as to the place at which   the electrocution took place.   However,  in the  counter  filed by opposite party no.1, it is  mentioned that  on 07.02.2011 at 8 A.M.  the deceased  Pabba Punnam  has  illegally and   unauthorisedly worked with  electrical equipment and  was electrocuted and died on the spot and   he is not authorised person to work on electrical lines, as  he  had neither obtained permission nor line clearance  either from the Departmental staff nor from  the concerned sub station.     

 The complainants  in  their   evidence affidavit  have not denied the above case of the opposite parties.   They simply reiterated the contents of the complaint in their  evidence affidavit. The opposite parties cannot be  blamed  for the incident took place.  

In view of the above facts and circumstances, the complainants have not adduced any evidence to show that  the deceased    Pabba Punnam    was electrocuted  due to negligence or carelessness on the part of the opp.parties in maintaining the lines.   Therefore, the opp.parties cannot be held responsible  for the death of the deceased    Pabba Punnam. We do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, to make them liable to pay compensation, to the complainant.

For the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any grounds, much less valid grounds, to interfere with the impugned order of the District Forum.  Hence the appeal fails. 

In the result  Appeal is dismissed . But in the circumstances of the case, without costs.

                                                                                                                                       MEMBER

                                                                             MEMBER

                                                                             MEMBER

Pm*                                                                       Dt.28.01.2014