Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/294/2011

Vanthala Kondababu - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.P.E.P.D.C.L - Opp.Party(s)

G Mutyala Naidu

09 Jun 2015

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:08-08-2011 

                                                                                                Date of Order:09-06-2015

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.  Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President   

2. Smt K. Saroja, M.A. B.L.,

     Lady Member 

3. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                                  Tuesday, the 9^th day of June, 2015.

                                  CONSUMER CASE No.294/2011

Between:-

1.Sri Vanthala Kondababu, S/o late Bheemanna,

   S.T. by caste, aged 53 years, residing at

   Chittamrai Village, Seekari Panchayat,

   Pedabayalu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

2.Smt. Vanthala Mutyalamma, W/o Kondababu,

   S.T. by Caste, aged 45 years, residing at

   Chittamrai Village Seekari Panchayat,

   Pedabayalu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.The Chairman-cum-Managing Director,

   A.P.E.P.D.C. Ltd., Seethammadhara,

   Visakhapatnam.

2.The Senior Divisional Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C. Ltd.,

   Opposite Green Park, Visakhapatnam.

3.The Asst. Divisional Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C. Ltd.,

    Paderu Division , Visakhapatnam.

4.The Assistant Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C. Ltd.,

    Pedabayalu, Visakhapatnam.

                                                                                         …  Opposite Parties

                           

          This case coming on 07.04.2015 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri C.N.S.P. Krishana Rao, Advocate for the Complainant and Sri A.Venugopala Rao, Advocate for the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri C. V. Rao, Honourable Male Member, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The Complainants asked the Forum to pass an award in their favour and against the Opposite Parties directing them: a) to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) to the Complainants towards compensation on account of the death of the deceased Vanthala Lakshmi due to electrocution on 28.08.2007; b) to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards mental agony, hardship and inconvenience suffered by the Complainants; c) to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only); d) to pass such other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 

 

2.       The Opposite Partiers 1 to 4 strongly resisted the claim of the Complainants and asked the Forum to dismiss the Complaint with exemplary costs.

           

3.       The case of the Complainants, as can be seen from the Complaint, is that the Complainants 1 and 2 are the parents of late Vanthala Lakshmi, resident of Chittamrai Village, Seekari Panchayat, Pedabayalu Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.   The Complainants are S.T. by caste and they are poor people.    The Complainants stated that on 28.08.2007 afternoon at about 12-00 hours the Complainant’s daughter Vanthala Lakshmi and her friend Rambai Aruna went to the house of Palasi Madhava Rao, S/o Chinnayya of Chittamrai Village and while she was cutting the flowers in front of his house, accidentally she met with electrocution of the electrical wires, which were fallen from the electrical poles and she died on the spot.   Immediately the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital, Paderu, where the Inquest and Post Mortem was conducted on the dead body of the deceased on 29.08.2007.   The Pedabayalu Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 30/2007 Under Section 174 of Cr.P.C.   The Complainants stated that the accident caused only due to deficiency of service, gross negligence and dereliction of duties on behalf of the Opposite Parties as they knew fully well that the wires were passing through the streets and they have neglected to rectify about the electricity wires which were cut and fell on the earth.   Due to the mishap, the Complainants’ daughter died.  The Complainants’ daughter was 9 years old by the time of accident and she was a student.   She was meritorious student both in studies and games and the Complainants have more expectation of their deceased daughter, but due to her sudden demise, their hopes are wiped out.   On account of the sudden demise of their daughter, the Complainants became mentally depressed and even till today they could not come out from the shock.   The Complainants further stated that the Opposite Parties are discharging their duties in a negligent manner and the Complainants lost their daughter because of the negligent act of the Opposite Parties.   The Complainants approached the Opposite Parties several times and requested to pay compensation on account of the death of their daughter due to electrocution on account of the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   But the Opposite Parties paid a deaf ear to the prayer of the Complainants and refused to pay the compensation and informed the Complainants that they have nothing to do with the said incident and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   The Complainants got issued a registered lawyer’s notice to the Opposite Parties on 27.01.2011 calling upon them to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the death of their daughter due to electrocution due to the negligent act of the employees of the Opposite Parties.   The Opposite Parties received the said notice, but neither paid the compensation nor sent any reply.   The Complainants further stated that the death of the deceased Vanthala Lakshmi was caused only on account of the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.   As the Opposite Parties refused to pay compensation, the Complainants are constrained to file this complaint for their redressal, that on account of the sudden demise of their daughter Vanthala Lakshmi, the Complainants are put to severe mental agony hardship.

 

          Subsequently, in their evidence affidavit of the 1^st Complainant, the Complainants further averred that Palasi Madhava Rao has no power connection even by the time of accident on 28.08.2007. 

 

4.       The Complainants filed an evidence affidavit filed by the 1^st Complainant, written arguments filed in reply, and also written arguments to the written reply arguments filed by the Opposite Parties.   Exs.A1 to A12 are marked for the Complainants.

 

5.       On the other hand, the Opposite Parties resisted the claim of the Complainants written arguments, by contending, as can be seen from their counter, that Palasi Madhava Rao was having a Tiled House and a Cow Shed by the side of his house and there is a Fencing (Dadi with a gate).   The said Madhava Rao has extended the Domestic Supply from his house to the Cow Shed and he used to use the said connection for his Cow Shed and used to fix the Bulb every night for lighting purpose and he used to remove the said Bulb in the day time without disconnecting the wires from the plug point in his house.   The Opposite Parties stated that on 28.08.2007 V. Laxmi while going to pluck the flowers behind the Cow Shed and without noticing the above said extended own service wire given by P. Madhava Rao, she touched the live wire at the gate point which resulted the above incident.   As such, there is absolutely no disservice or deficiency of service and also no gross negligence and dereliction of duties on behalf of any of the Opposite Parties as no low transmission wires (LT Wires) have fallen which are passing through the Poles of the streets and the Opposite Parties have never neglected to rectify the LT Wires which were cut and fallen on the earth as alleged by the Complainants in the Complaint and no such incident  took place due to fall of LT wires passing through the streets.   The mishap for the Complainant’s daughter V. Lakshmi has never happened on account of the fall of LT Wires, but it may be only due to the personal service wire of P. Madhava Rao alone and as such it is only the fault of P. Madhava Rao alone who has extended his own Service Connection wire from his house to his Cow Shed and in the day time also he never disconnected the said wires from the plug point in his house.

 

6.       Evidence Affidavit filed by the 3^rd Opposite Party and also written arguments, and written arguments in reply answering some basic points raised by the Complainants in their reply written arguments, are filed by the Opposite Parties.   However, no exhibits are marked for the Opposite Parties.

 

7.       The matter has been heard on behalf of the Complainants as well as the Opposite Parties.

         

8.       After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the averments put forward by the Complainants, in the evidence affidavit and written arguments filed by them, that “ I submit that the said Palasi Madhava Rao has no power connection even by the time of accident on 28.08.2007”, stand unchallenged by the Opposite Parties.   This is so because the Opposite Parties clearly have records in their possession regarding the power connections given by them in the area and whether Palasi Madhava Rao had supply of electricity on the fateful date could be easily and readily presented by the Opposite Parties before this Forum by means of records in their possession.   But they did not make any attempt to show that the said Palasi Madhava Rao in fact had supply of electricity on the date of accident in question.   So, an adverse inference should be necessarily drawn to the effect that the said Palasi Madhava Rao did not have any power connection on the date of the accident.   Therefore, it can be readily concluded that the case of the Complainants, that “while the Complainants’ deceased daughter Vanthala Lakshmi was cutting the flower in front of the house of Palasi Madhava Rao, accidently she met with electrocution of the electrical wires which were fallen from the electrical poles and she died on the spot”, is established.   As such, the Opposite Parties are squarely liable for the death of the young girl and so the Complainants are entitled to the reliefs prayed by them in the complaint.     There is definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.    Because of the deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties the Complainants lost their beloved daughter and all the consequential losses of physical hardship, mental agony and financial hardship, naturally should have followed.   As such, the Complainants are entitled to the reliefs prayed by them in the complaint.

 

9.       In the result, this Forum directs the Opposite Parties 1 to 4: a) to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) to the Complainants towards compensation on account of the death of their daughter the deceased Vanthala Lakshmi due to electrocution on 28.08.2007, b) to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) towards mental agony, hardship and inconvenience suffered by the Complainants, and c) to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the Complainants.  Time for compliance, one month.

 

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 9^th day of June, 2015.

 

Sd/-                                  Sd/-                                          Sd/-                       

President                          Lady Member                           Male Member

 

                            

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainants:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01	28.08.2007	First Information Report	Attested copy
Ex.A02	29.08.2007	Report of Post Mortem Examination	Attested copy
Ex.A03	29.08.2007	Inquest Report	Attested copy
Ex.A04	29.08.2007	Death Certificate issued by the Village Revenue Officer, Seekari, Pedabayalu Mandal	Attested copy
Ex.A05	27.01.2011	Registered Lawyer’s Notice with Postal receipts (5)  issued by the Complainants’ counsel to the Opposite Parties	Office copy
Ex.A06		Acknowledgement from OP1	Original
Ex.A07		Acknowledgement from OP2	Original
Ex.A08		Acknowledgement from Op3	Original
Ex.A09		Acknowledgement from OP4	Original
Ex.A10		Acknowledgement form OP5	Original
Ex.A11	04.09.2013	Sakshi News Paper submitted by the Complainant	Original
Ex.A12	04.12.2014	Request for Information Letter addressed by the Public Information  Officer to the Complainants’ counsel	Original

For the Opposite Parties:-               

-Nil-

Sd/-                                    Sd/-                                            Sd/-                      

President                            Lady Member                             Male Member