This case is coming for final hearing on 29.09.2014 in the presence of Sri K.Venugopal, Advocate for the Complainants and of Sri K.S.Shankar Advocate for Opposite Parties and having stood over till this date, the Forum delivered the following:

: O R D E R :

(As per Smt. K.V.R.Maheswari, Honourable President(FAC) on

behalf of the Bench)

1.       The case of the complainants is that both the complainants are the parents of deceased Karri Deva Lova Nookaraju who died on in an electrical accident on 01.09.2012 in the morning at about 7-30a.m in Somalingapalem Village in Yelamanchili Mandalam and they are the permanent residents of said village for the last 20 years.  The Complainants stated that on 01.09.2012 at about 7.30.am when K.Deva Lova Nookaraju walking on the side of the Sarada River of his Village for cutting the grass when the stay wire of the electrical pole touched to the left hand of the said Nookaraju and he got electrical shock and fell down on the way.  Immediately after the accident he was admitted in the community health center, Yelamanchili and where the doctors declared that he already died due to electrical shock and burn injuries.  After the accident, the Yelamanchili Police registered the said accident in Cr.No.86/2012 and after the inquest and postmortem the dead body of Karri Deva Lova Nookaraju was handed over to the complainants for funeral and obsequies.  The said accident was due to the passing of hi-tension electricity to the deceased through the stay wire of the said pole on the side of the Sarada River which clearly shows deficiency of service and dereliction of duties of the employees of the electrical department.  The Complainant stated that the deceased Nookaraju was aged about 14 years and he was quiet hale and healthy and he was studying 9^th class in Somalingapalem ZPH School and he was brilliant student and also school leader of the said school.  He was an intelligent boy and also participated in every science fair to represent the school.  Hence, the teachers showed very much interest on said Nookaraju.  The complainants’ lost their son in the above said accident and any amount of compensation in terms of money cannot be compensated due to the death of their son because of an accident.  The Opposite parties visited the accident spot and enquired in to the matter with the complainants, then they restored the power line and they have not paid any ex-gratia to the complainants even after receipt of registered lawyer’s notice which was issued on 01.05.2013.  Hence this complaint to direct the opposite parties;

a) to pay Rs.10,000/- towards transport to hospital and medical expenses and

b) to pay Rs.10,000/- towards funeral and obsequies

c) to pay Rs.4,80,000/- towards compensation for their mental agony and loss of future income due to the death of their son. 

2.       On the other hand, the 4^th opposite party filed its counter and the same was adopted by the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  All the opposite parties denied the allegations mentioned in the complaint and pleaded that there is no relationship of consumer between the complainants and opposite parties.  The Complainants never availed any service connection or benefit from the opposite parties by paying consideration directly or indirectly so that the complaint is not maintainable. 

3.       The Opposite parties stated that the alleged L.T Pole was situated on mini Sarada River and there was a service connection bearing AGL Sc.No.696 exiting on the same pole got burnt on the LT cross arm which is not visible from the ground.  Upon verification by this Opposite party immediately on receipt of a telephone call from Ex.MPP by name B.Somanna Dora Opposite party’s department officials including the 4^th opposite party investigated and found that due to heavy rains since two days prior to the occurrence the existing burnt, service connection 696 wires might have touched with a stay wire and which resulted electrocution due to moist condition.  Nobody will pass through the said bund and it is not known as to why the deceased has reached the said pole and intentionally came in contract with the pole.  The Opposite party used to make frequent inspection of the entire LT supply area and as and when there is any sort circuit are any defect this opposite party will rectify the same.  Two days prior to incident there were heavy rains in that locality whereby it is not possible to reach the area by the officials also.  Therefore, there is negligence on the part of the deceased in coming in contact with the pole, as this opposite party is not aware of the fact that there were supply/short circuit on L.T cross arm till they reach the place after the incident.  Therefore, there is no negligence on the part of the officials of opposite parties.  The Yelamanchili Police did not register any case against any of the officials of the opposite parties and the complainants did not produce any legal heir certificate issued by the Tahsildar except family member certificate.  The deceased is neither employee nor an earning member, but only a student depending upon the complainants.  More over, on 01.09.2012 which is alleged accident the day is Saturday the deceased is expected to go to school and no reason was assigned by the complainants as to why he did not go to school on that day and instead of agricultural operations by cutting grass, hence it is not correct the deceased was a regular and bright student. 

4.       The Opposite parties stated that as there is no negligence on its part they are not liable, however on humanitarian grounds, the opposite parties paid Rs.50,000/- by way of cheque bearing No.579352 dated 07.02.2013 in the name of K. Appalakonda as exgratia towards full and final settlement through ADE, Operations, Yelamanchili and the same was encashed.  Suppressing the said fact, the father K.S.Apparao and sister of deceased K.Ramadevi alone issued the lawyer’s notice to these opposite parties knowing fully well that the Exgratia was received by the 2^nd complainant i.e., deceased mother and the mother of the deceased by name K.Appala Konda is figured as 2^nd complainant and Ramadevi is not figured in the Complaint and filed the above false complaint without mentioning of receipt of Rs.50,000/- by 2^nd complainant.  Hence, the complainants did not come to the court with clean hands and there is no cause of action and complainant is not a consumer, hence this complaint is to be dismissed. 

5.       At the time of enquiry, the complainant filed evidence affidavit along with documents which are marked as Exhibits A1 to A5.  The Complainant also filed written arguments. On the other hand, the opposite party No.4 filed its counter and Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed adoption memo adopting the counter of 4^th opposite party and also filed evidence affidavits.  No documents are marked on behalf of opposite parties.  No written arguments were filed by the opposite parties.  Treated it heard for complainant as represented by their counsel.  Heard the opposite parties who reiterated their versions.

6.       In view of the respective contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:-

Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, if so can the complainants entitle for the reliefs prayed for?

7.       As per Ex.A1 i.e., Inquest report dated 01.09.2012 the cause of death of the deceased Karri Deva Lova Nookaraju S/o Suri Apparao is only because of electrocution at about 7-30a.m when he is walking on the side of Sarada River for cutting the grass.  There itself in column -9 the cause of death is only because of the stay wire of the electric pole touched to the left hand of the said Nookaraju and he got electrical shock and died there itself.  Ex.A2 is the death certificate of Karri Deva Lova Nookaraju S/o Suri Apparao.  Ex.A3 is the Family member certificate dated 04.01.2013 (not legal heir certificate as mentioned by the complainant in list of documents), where it mentioned that both the complainants are mother and father and one K.Ramadevi is sister.  Ex.A4 is the Sakshi paper cutting dated 02.09.2012 with news regarding the death of complainant’s son.  Ex.A5 is the registered notice dated 01.05.2013 issued by the complainant to all the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

8.       The Complainants’ plea is that even after issuance of legal notice they did not come forward to settle the issue and not paid any compensation to the complainant even though the opposite parties cannot compensate their mental hardship in terms of money.

9.       The version of the opposite parties is that as there is no consideration between the complainants and opposite parties hence the complainants are not consumers, but in our view the complainants are residing in the same village since more than 20 years and more over the Opposite parties’ bounden duty is to maintain all electrical supply lines and apparatus properly, so as to prevent danger, but they did not bother and violated rules which impunity.  Being electrical power supply provider by collecting electrical charges from the complainants they the consumers and come under Consumer Protection Act.

10.     The other plea of the opposite parties is that due to heavy rains might have touched with the stay wire and which resulted electrocution and nobody will pass through the said pole but only deceased reached the said pole and intentionally came to contact with the pole.  This argument of the opposite parties’ is meaningless as no one approach the electrical wires intentionally, that too the age of the deceased was 14 years as mentioned in Ex.A4 and also the complainants mentioned in the complaint that he is studying 9^th standard.  Hence deceased is not a small kid and being a 14 years boy, not intentionally contact with the electrical wires.

11.     The opposite parties’ other plea is that “2 days prior to the accident there were heavy rains whereby, it is not possible to reach the area by the officials also” but the opposite parties should take proper precautionary measures by disconnecting the power supply to that locality, inspite of that they argued that the deceased himself intentionally came and contact with the pole, but in our view, only because of due diligence and negligence of opposite parties this incident happened.

12.     The other plea of the opposite parties is that the complainants not produced legal heir certificate except family member certificate but in our view with family member certificate it is able to know the legal heirs of deceased.  The Opposite parties also argued that the deceased being a student, on 01.09.2012 which is alleged incident i.e., on Saturday he did not go to the school and on that date went for cutting the grass.  But evidently as per Ex.A1, the deceased died on 7-30a.m and it is not the question that the deceased is a student or not, but he is a future citizen and this plea is not taken into consideration by the Forum.

13.     The Opposite parties’ plea is that they issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 07.02.2013 towards full and final settlement on humanitarian grounds in the name of K.Appalakonda as exgratia, but this plea is not substantiated by the Opposite parties by filing any account copy of their bank etc.  The Lawyer’s notice issued by the 1^st and 2^nd complainant only, but not by 1^st complainant and his daughter as pleaded by Opposite parties, may be there is a correction in the lawyer’s notice in the name of 2^nd complainant.

14.     Hence, in our view under the Indian Electricity Act and Rules framed there under, a supplier of electricity is under Statutory obligation to maintain all of its lines and equipments etc., in such condition so as to ensure that no one comes into the direct contact of such lines or equipments resulting into mishaps.  It is apparent that there were some hanging live wires and stay wire of the electrical pole was hanging and the transformer had not been protected against untoward incidents as happened in the case in hand.  Therefore, the Opposite parties cannot escape from their liability to compensate the complainants. 

15.     Now coming to the question of quantification of the compensation, this question has always been a difficult one for any court or tribunal to decide particularly in cases where the victim not an earning one.  In this case in hand, the victim by Karri Deva Lova Nookaraju was aged about 14 years at the time of incident and he had so much future and also he had to take care of his parents in their old age, but unfortunately he died because of the careless acts of the opposite parties. It is true that no one can compensate in terms of money the emotional feelings of any person, but we are of the view that it would adequately meet the ends of justice if a lump sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- is awarded to the complainants.

          Accordingly, this point is answered.

16.     In the result, the complaint is allowed directing all the opposite parties to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards transport, funeral expenses and for compensation within three months to the complainant, failing which to pay the same with 9% p.a. interest from the date of receipt of order till the date of payment. The Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs.1,500/- towards costs.

Dictated to the Shorthand Writer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 24^th day of October, 2014.

    Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

Member                                                                 President (FAC)

                                                                   District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                             Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Exhibits Marked for the Complainant:

Exhibits Marked for the Opposite Parties:

                        NIL

    Sd/-                                                                       Sd/-

Member                                                                  President (FAC)

                                                                    District Consumer Forum-I

                                                                              Visakhapatnam

//VSSKL//