BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION :HYDERABAD
F.A.No.136/2007 against C.C.No.5/2006, Dist.Forum, Kadapa.
Between:
Smt.D.Rama Devi, W/o.Late Jammullu,
Aged about 25 years, Occ:House Wife ,
R/o.D.No.2/150-62, Tharakarama Nagar,
Chemmumiyapet, Kadapa Town & District. …Appellant/
Complainant
And
The Superintending Engineer, A.P.Transco,
Kadapa City & District. … Respondent/
Respondent
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.K.Venkatrami Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent : M/s. V.Ajay Kumar
CORAM: SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,
AND
SRI K.SATYANAND, HON’BLE MEMBER.
MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY,
TWO THOUSAND TEN.
Oral Order (Per Smt M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
****
Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.5/2006 on the file of District Forum, Kadapa, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant and her husband are residing at door no.2/150-62, Tharakarama Nagar, Chemmumiahpeta , Kadapa Dist. and her husband is a lorry driver and on 3.8.2003 while carrying cement slabs to his new house at about 2 p.m. there was a heavy rain along with the wind and a live electrical wire fell on her husband and immediately he fell down with the wire on him and when the complainant shouted for help, his father in law came to help but he too suffered an electrical shock and fell down. A Rickshaw driver came and lifted the wire with a stick and took both her husband and father in law to the Government General Hospital, Kadapa where she was informed by the doctor that her husband died due to electrical shock. On 4.8.2003 the complainant gave a complaint to the police station who registered a case that her husband died due to electrical shock. The complainant submits that her husband was earning Rs.5000/- per month as a lorry driver and it is only because of the negligence of the opposite party that the service wire fell on her husband and he was electrocuted. The opposite party is liable to pay compensation and hence the complaint seeking direction to the opposite party to pay Rs.2 lakhs towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards expences incurred together with other reliefs and costs.
The opposite party filed counter stating that it may be true that the electrical wires on the road might have snapped and fallen on the ground due to heavy wind and gale resulting in unfortunate accident. But he contended that the electrical wires of bunched cable with insulation does not allow electrical shock to come into contact with live objects. There is no negligence on behalf of the department as the live electrical wires stated to have been cut off might have been illegally tapped as the area is considered to be a slum area. The death of the complainant’s husband is due to natural calamity and not due to the negligence of the department. There is no complaint recorded in the records of the concerned Asst. Engineer in whose jurisdiction the death took place. There is also no record of even rectification of that locality where the said accident is supposed to have taken place. The opposite party submits that the complaint is also barred by limitation and there is no deficiency in service on their behalf and seek dismissal of the complaint with costs.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A3 and pleadings put forward dismissed the complaint without costs.
Aggrieved by the said order the complainant preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that the complainant and her husband are living at door no.2/150-62, Tharakarama Nagar, Chemmumiahpeta, Kadapa Dist. and that the complainant’s husband is a lorry driver. On 3.8.2003 while the complainant’s husband was carrying cement slabs to his new house at about 2 p.m., admittedly there was heavy rain with wind and a live electrical wire fell down on the complainant’s husband . It is the complainant’s case that her husband fell down and she shouted for help and her father in law came to help and he also suffered electrical shock and fell down and a rickshaw driver came and lifted the live wire with a stick and took her husband and father in law to Government General Hospital where her husband declared died due to electrical shock. On 4.8.2003 the complainant gave a complaint before the Taluk Police Station and this was evidenced under Ex.A1. It is the opposite party’s case that the electrical wires of bunched cable with insulation does not allow electrical shock on coming into contact with the live objects and the bunched cable will not snap in normal course and that the complainant’s husband died due to natural calamity but not due to the negligence of the Department. It is their further contention that the live electrical wires stated to have been cut off might have been illegally tapped wire as the area is considered to be a slum area and there is no complaint in the records of the concerned Asst. Engineer in whose jurisdiction it took place and also there are no records for any rectification of wire of that locality and time to time there was checking of electrical lines and poles and hence there is no deficiency in service on their behalf. While Ex.A1 evidences that the cause of death is due to electrical shock, Ex.A3 Postmortem report clearly states that the deceased died due to electrical insulation. The FIR is registered as an accidental death due to electrical shock. The contention of the opposite party that the electrical wires on the road might have been snapped on the ground due to heavy rain resulting in the accident but it is not due to their negligence since the electrical wires of bunched cables with insulation does not allow electrical shock is un sustainable in the absence of any documentary evidence. The burden of proof shifts on the opposite party since the complainant established by way of Exs.A1 to A3 that the death of her husband is only due to electrical shock which resulted from the electrical wires having fallen on the deceased. Merely saying that illegal tapping of wires might have caused this accident without any proof or evidence cannot be a substantial ground to prove that there is no negligence on their behalf. Taking into consideration the material on record and pleadings put forward we are of the considered view that the complainant was able to establish that her husband’s death is due to an electrical shock caused by fall of electrical wires on her husband and it is only because of the negligent attitude of the opposite party in leaving the electrical wires cut off without proper insulation that has caused the accident. To reiterate, when the complainant established her case that the death is due to electrical shock, the opposite party failed to prove that there is no negligence on their behalf. We also take into consideration that the complainant’s husband is a lorry driver earning Rs.5000/- per month which was not controverted by the opposite party. We are of the considered view that the District Forum has erred in dismissing the complaint and we allow this appeal setting aside the order of the District Forum and direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation together with costs of Rs.5000/- .
In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation and loss of life together with costs of Rs.5000/-. Time for compliance four weeks failing which the amount would attract interest at 9% p.a.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Dt. 1.2.2010
pm
