This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K.Simhachalam, Advocate for the complainant and P.Venugopal Rao, Advocate for the Opposite Parties and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
G.APPALA NAIDU, MEMBER
This complaint is filed U/s-12 of C.P.Act seeking reliefs directing the OP’s to pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainants towards compensation on account of death of the deceased Vudikala Ramudu due to electrocution on 14.01.2010, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, hardship and inconvenience suffered by the complainants, to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- and to pass such other relief or reliefs as Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case on the following averments:-
The 1st complainant is the wife and the complainants 2 to 4 are the children of late Vudikala Ramudu S/o late Appayya who died due to electrocution on 14.01.2010. (Early hours). The deceased Vudikala Ramudu left his house at about 4.00 AM for answering natural calls and while attending the same he got electrical shock as the electrical wires fell on the road due to heavy rain and winds as one Tamarind tree fell on the electrical wires and the deceased cound not identify the wires on the road due to darkness he got clectrical shock and burn injuries and died on the spot due to the said electrocution. Immediately he was shifted to community health centre at Bhogapuram where the doctors declared that he was already dead due to the above incident. Immediately MRO, Bhogapuram gave a report to SHO Bhogapuram who registered case in crime No-10/2010 under section 174 of Cr.P.C.
The complainants further submit that the accident occurred only due to deficiency of service, gross negligency and dereliction of duties on the part of OP’s as they fully knew that the wires were passing through the fields when they were cut and fell on the earth but neglected to take immediate corrective action.
The deceased was aged about 50 years as on the date of accident and he was quite hale and healthy doing labour work who used to earn 300/- per day being the only earning member of the family. After the said incident though the officials of OP’s visited the accident spot and assured the complainants for payment of ex-gratia amount as per norms, they have not paid any amount to the complainants till date inspite of submission of necessary documents to the OP’s claiming ex-gratia/compensation though the complainants approached the OP’s several times and also submitted a letter dated 08.10.2002 under R.T.I Act to furnish information with regard to their claim application and having issued an endorsement dated 15.10.2012 stating that they have received the claim application and documents from the complainants. There was no positive action from their side except informing that they have sent the papers to their higher officials for approval but postponing the same on one pretext or the other. Therefore the complainants got issued a registered lawyers notice to the OP’s on 15.11.2012 to pay compensation along with interest but having received the said notices there was no response from the OP’s. On account of the sudden demise of the deceased being the lone earning member of the family, the complainants are put to severe mental agony, hardship and untold suffering due to the negligent act of the OP’s. Hence this complaint.
Counter filed by the 1st OP which was adopted by OP’s 2 to 4 denying the material allegations made in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted therein and puts the complainants to strict proof of the same. The respondents submits that the deceased/complainants are not consumers as per the definition in the consumer act nor any evidence to that effect produced and hence the complaint is abinitio not maintainable in the Forum besides stating that the complaint will not come under consumer dispute. Further as per the provisions of Electricity Act 2003 the complainants did not give notice of occurrance of accident to the Electrical Inspector which is mandatory.
It is further submitted by the OP’s that while heavy rain and winds occurred during the night of 13.01.2010, consequently one tamarind tree fell on the electrical wires which were cut and lying on the road as a result of which the accident occurred in the wee hours of 14.01.2010 as stated in FIR and admitted by OP’s causing the said accident due to nature’s Act. Therefore the respondents are not responsible nor liable to the accident but some other ulterior cause caused the accident. Hence attributing liability to respondents is farfetched and to have unlawful gain from the respondents, the complaint is filed though there is no deficiency of service on the part of respondents and their company. It is also further submitted that without admitting legal liability, proposals for ex-gratia processed but due to filing of complaint making the respondents legally liable, further process was stopped. The respondents also submits that as can be seen from the report to the police there is no whisper about liability of the department but in the reports. It was stated that as Tamarind tree fell on the electrical lines and even in the Inquest report there is no whisper about the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Department.
Since there are no merits or bonafides in the claim of the complainants and there is no cause of action to claim any compensation against the OP’s, the respondents pray that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice.
Exhibits A1 to A15 are marked on behalf of the complainants and no exhibits are marked on behalf of the OP’s.
Heard arguments of both sides. The counsel for both the parties advanced arguments reiterating what they have stated in the complaint, counter, evidence affidavits and brief written arguments respectively.
Vide I.A.No.87/2012 this Forum condoned the delay of 325 days in filing the complaint as the same is neither intentional nor wanton and on the other hand the cause of action remains continuous since the complainants are pursuing the matter till date.
The petitioners filed copy of FIR, Post Mortem Certificate, and inquest report to show that the deceased died due to electrocution on 14.01.2010 and they have also filed a family member certificate to show that the deceased Ramudu died leaving behind him the complainants as his legal heirs. They have also filed a copy of application filed under R.T.I. Act and endorsement of R.T.A. letter to show that they have made a complaint to the OP’s along with the relevant documents and the said complaint is in process. Further in the endorsement of R.T.A. letter made by Assistant Engineer (Electrical Operation) Bhogapuram, it is specifically stated that 4 months after the accident the copy of FIR, Post Mortem Report, Death Certificate, legal heir Certificate, and the application claiming compensation were submitted to the electrical office situated in Bhogapuram and the said documents were immediately sent to the higher officials with a request to consider the same favourably and that the officials at Bhogapuram are awaiting reply from their higher officials. Therefore the aforesaid endorsement indicates that the complainants are diligent in making a claim with the officials of the OP’s and the said claim is in process. As per complainants pursuation, they have approached the OP’s many a time and requested them to settle the claim. As there was no positive response they got issued a notice calling upon them to pay compensation amount but of no avail. To prove the said contention they have filed copy of registered notice, postal receipts and acknowledgements of OP 1 and returned cover of OP-2. As seen from the said documents it is very clear that the complainants did not sleep over the matter but are pursuing the same on continuous basis.
Now the point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service, negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of OP’s.?
As seen from FIR, Post Mortem Certificate and Panchannama, it is evident that the death of the deceased is only due to electric shock and burn injuries and the accident occurred in the early hours on 14.01.2010 when the deceased went for answering natural calls and as a sequel to heavy rain and winds tree Tamarind tree fell on the electrical wires which were cut and lying on the ground. The deceased died on the spot due to electrocution as he could not identify the fallen wires and touched the same unknowingly due to darkness. The electrical Department however did not take any precautions though there was heavy rain and winds on the night of accident though their office is near to the spot of the incident and they can anticipate that such heavy rain, gales and winds will result in such accidents as the supply of energy itself is hazardious in nature and cause calculated risks. This shows the deficiency in service, negligence and dereliction in duty on the part of OP’s.
In a decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case between Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Versus Shail Kumar and others (2002 (2) ALD 4 (SC) as reported in Supreme Court full reports in C.A.No.180 of 2002 decided on the 11th day of January, 2002 it was observed and held in Para 7 and 8:
PARA 7:- It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the board and if the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into, the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the suppliers of the electric energy. Further observation is that so long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangers dimension, the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning of such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road, the electric current there on should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.
PARA 8:- Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risk exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known in law as “strict liability”. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e., the concepts of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.
As seen from the principles laid down in the decision cited supra the suppliers of the electricity are liable for the damage without proof that they have been negligent. Coming to case on hand the plea taken by OP’s that on account of heavy rain and winds the electrical wires were cut and fallen on the ground as the Tamarind Tree fell on the wires cannot be accepted and hence the OP’s cannot escape their liability.
In another decision in JOGINDER SINGH v. STATE OF J & K; AIR 2011 page 130 Wherein it is held:- Deceased came into contact with live wire hanging loose from the pole in fields from 8-10 days that remained un-attended by officials. Incident though admitted by authorities but defence raised that it was purely an act of god on account of heavy rains. State and its functioners who were engaged in supplying electricity, knew that live electric wire has dangerous dimension. No precautionary measures taken to prevent snapping of wire. State and its officials being negligent, liable under strict liability.
As seen from the above judgement a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risk exposure with human life is liable under law and Torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of manager of such undertakings.
Therefore the submission of the OP’s in their counter that without admitting legal liability, proposals for ex-gratia processed but due to filing of complaint making the respondents legally liable, further process was stopped by the department is nothing but high handedness on the part of officials. Without any further saying, the above submission itself is automatic admission of the department as to its liability.
If any live electrical wire is cut and fallen on the ground for any reason whatsoever, the supply of power would be disrupted. Similarly when there was heavy rain, gale and winds, the live electrical wires would be disrupted and as such a duty is cast upon the men of the OP’s to restore the wires immediately to prevent damage to the men and cattle, who unnoticingly comes into contact with such electrical wires. Since the men of the OP’s did not check the live electrical wires which were cut and fallen on the ground. As a result of the Tamarind Tree fallen on the electrical wires due to heavy rain, gale and winds there is any amount of negligence and dereliction of duties in addition to deficiency of service on the part of OP’s. Hence the OP’s are liable to pay compensation to the victims.
Now the point is whether the complainants are entitled to get Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation from the OP’s. As per the statement made and evidence produced, the deceased was aged about 55 years and he was quite hale and healthy doing labour work and used to earn Rs.300/- per day being the only earning member of the family. Since no cogent evidence is produced with regard to actual earnings per day, notional wage per day is fixed at Rs.150/- and the number of working days on an average is taken at 20 in a month. Accordingly total wages per month comes to Rs.3,000/- out of which 1,000/- can be straight away deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased. The balance of Rs.2,000/- can be taken as monthly loss of dependency.
In a case of this nature while fixing the Multiplier the age of the wife of the deceased is to be taken into consideration as she is the main claimant besides other dependents i.e. two daughters and one son who are all majors (all unmarried). The age of the wife of the deceased i.e. the 1st dependent is taken as around 47 years. Hence the appropriate multiplier is fixed at 13. The annual loss of dependency comes to Rs.24,000/- and if the said dependency is multiplied by an appropriate multiplier i.e. 13 fixed supra, the compensation under the head loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,12,000/-. The same is accordingly awarded as compensation to the complainants under the head loss of dependency. In addition to that a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses and Rs.3,000/- is awarded towards mental agony, inconvenience and costs. In all the complainants are entitled to get compensation amount of Rs.3,20,000/-.
In the result the complaint/petition is partly allowed directing the OP’s to pay a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) to the complainants within two months from the date of this order. Out of the said compensation the 1st complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,20,000/-, 2nd complainant is entitled to get Rs.80,000/-, 3rd complainant is entitled to get Rs.70,000/- and 4th complainant is entitled to get Rs.50,000/-. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1,000/-.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 10th day of March, 2014.
Member President
C.C.No.28/2013
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant:- For opposite parties:-
PW 1. RW 1.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For complainant:-
Ex.A-1 is the Attested Copy of F.I.R dt.14.01.2010.
Ex.A-2 is the copy of P.M.Certificate dt.14.01.2010.
Ex.A-3 is the copy of Inquest Report dt.14.01.2010.
Ex.A-4 is the copy of Family members certificate dt.15.02.2010.
Ex.A-5 is the copy of Application under RTI Act, dt.08.10.2012.
Ex.A-6 is the Original copy of Acknowledgement Card,dt.09.10.2012.
Ex.A-7 is the original copy of Endorsement to RTI letter,
dt.15.10.2012.
Ex.A-8 is the office copy of Registered lawyer’s notice.
Ex.A-9 is postal receipts (4 in No), dt.15.11.2012.
Ex.A-10 is the copy of Acknowledgement of O.P.1, dt.15.11.2012.
Ex.A-11 is the copy of Returned cover of O.P.2, dt.16.11.2012.
For O.P: – Nil -
President
