BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Tuesday the 25th day of April, 2006
C.C.No.11/2006
Vanja Pedda Ranga Swamy, S/o V.Rangaiah, Aged 30 years, Hindu, Cultivation,
R/o High Kottala (V) Hamlet of Kanala (V), Nandyal, Kurnool Dist.
. . . Complainant
V/s
1 . Additional Assistant Engineer (Operation),
A.P.C.P.D.C.P Ltd., Sirvel, Kurnool District.
2. The Additional Divisional Engineer (Operation),
A.P.C.P.D.C.P. Ltd., Allagadda, Kurnool District.
3. The Divisional Engineer (Operation),
A.P.C.P.D.C.P. Ltd., Nandyal Kurnool District. . . . Opposite parties
This complaint coming on this day for Orders in the presence of Sri D.M.Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool for complainant and Sri D.Srinivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool for opposite parties No.1 to 3, and stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following.
O R D E R
(As per Smt.C.Preethi, Hon’ble Member)
1. This Consumer Complaint of the complainant is filed under Section 12 of C.P. Act, seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay to the complainant Rs.16,000/- cost of the buffalo, Rs.18,000/- loss of income for six months, Rs.4,000/- towards expenditure for post-mortem and cremation etc., and Rs.4,000/- as cost of this complaint.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the complainant purchased a milching buffalo which gave six litres of milk in the morning and 3 to 4 litres of milk in the evening everyday and the complainant was getting a monthly income of about Rs.3,000/- per month from the said buffalo.
3. On 30-5-2004 at about 10 A.M. the complainant took the said buffalo for grazing in the fields of one Vangaru Lakshmi Reddy and the buffalo suddenly fell down and was struggling for life, on observing, an electricity wire coming from the transformer was lying on the length, due to the negligent act on part of opposite parties in allowing the electricity wire with flow of electricity the said buffalo died due to electrocution and a FIR is registered under Section 429 of IPC and file No.109/2004 and post-mortem was done to the said buffalo by Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Pandurangapuram, Nandyal Mandal. The complainant got issued a legal notice dated 13-6-2004 to opposite parties seeking payment of Rs.16,000/- towards cost of the buffalo and 4,000/- as expenditure for post-mortem. The opposite parties 2 and 3 received the notices but did not respond and opposite party No.1 evaded to receive the said notice. Hence the complainant filed this complaint before the Forum for redressal.
4. The complainant in support of his case relied on the following documents. Viz(1) Buffalo purchase bill dated 20-3-2004 for Rs.15,000/- (2) True copy of FIR dated 30-5-2004 (3) True copy of post-mortem certificate dated 19-6-2004 (4) Office copy of legal notice issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite parties 1,2 and 3 (5)Postal receipts (3 in numbers) for sending Ex.A4 (6) Returned cover addressed to opposite party No.3 (7) Postal acknowledgement as to the receipt of Ex.A4 by opposite party No.3 (8) Postal acknowledgement as to the receipts of Ex.A4 by opposite party No.2 (9) Bill for photographs dated 30-5-2004 for Rs.100/- and (10) Two photographs along with negatives, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of its complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A10 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant caused interrogatories to the opposite parties and suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by the opposite parties.
5. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties 1,2 and 3 appear through their standing counsel and opposite party No.1 filed its written version denying the truth and bonafidies of the complainant’s claim and opposite party No.2 and 3 adopted the written version of opposite party No.1.
6. The written version of opposite parties denies the complaint averments as not maintainable either in law or on facts, and further denies the buffalo of the complainant died due to electrocution is false and the post-mortem certificates no where shows electrical injury to the buffalo and there is no valid evidence as to the purchase of buffalo by complainant for Rs.15,000/- and there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and opposite party and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with costs.
7. The opposite parties in support of their case filed sworn affidavit of opposite party No.1 and the opposite parties caused interrogatories to the complainant and suitabely replied to the interrogatories caused by the complainant, but did not filed any documents in support of their case.
8. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:?
9. The grievance of the complainant is that her cow had been electrocuted and died on account of it coming into contact with a live wire lying in the open ground and hence, loss caused to her by reason of death of the cow should be made good by the opposite parties which are responsible for the supply of electricity in that area. The complainant purchased the said cow vide Ex.A1. The Ex.A1 is the buffalo purchase bill, Dt.20-3-2004 issued by one Badaru Chinna Rangaiah to the complainant for Rs.15,000/- and alleges deficiency of service on opposite parties to make good for the loss caused to the complainant as the electricity supply lines are maintained by opposite parties, thus, they are responsible under C.P. Act.
10. The opposite parties in their written version averments allege that there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and opposite parties, but the complainant submitted that she is a consumer as electrocution comes under the purview of the consumer disputes in view of the fact that the consumer pay electricity charges to the electricity department and the department has to supply electricity to consumers without any deficiency of service and regulate the same and see that it does not escape and cause injury.
11. The Ex.A2 is C.C of FIR dated 30-5-2004, the Ex.A3 is the true copy of post-mortem certificate dated 19-6-2004, it envisages the death of a she buffalo due to electric shock. From the post-mortem report (Ex.A3) and other material on record, it appears that the she buffalo died because of electrocution coming in contact with live wire lying in the open ground which was snapped from the pole. In this respect the complainant has placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court reported in I (2002) SLT page 149=2002 (3) ALD page 4, between M.P Electricity Board V/s Shail Kumar, wherein it was held that damages for electrocution by live wire lying on the road and Electricity Board cannot deny compensation and another decision of A.P. State Commission reported in I 2005 CPJ page 778 between N.Kunchi Babu and Others V/s A.P. Transco & Others, wherein it was held that failure on part of electricity board to maintain minimum distance as per norms of Electricity Act, is deficiency of service.
12. The two photographs in Ex.A10 clearly proves that the electric wires are dangerous lying in the open ground are clear violation of standard norms and rules in respect of maintaining electricity supply in that area, and the death to the she buffalo of the complainant after coming in contact with live wire and had been electrocuted in open ground is certainly amounting to deficiency of service. It is a fact that responsibility to supply electricity in a particular locality is statutorily conffered on the board and if the energy so transmitted causes injury or death who gets unknowingly trapped, the primary liability to compensate to the sufferer is that of the supplier. In the instant case it is the responsibility of opposite parties to take proper care and precautions and adhere to the norms of the Electricity Act and also it is the duty of opposite parties to take all safety measures to prevent such unfortunate accidents from occurring.
13. Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case and relying on the decisions of Supreme Court and A.P. State Commission, it is clear that opposite parties have committed an act of deficiency of service and are liable to pay costs of the she buffalo and cost of the complaint, to which the complainant is perfectly remaining entitled and the remaining releifs are dismissed for want of substantiating material.
14. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay to the complainant Rs.15,000/- cost of the she buffalo with 12% interest from the date of death of she buffalo and Rs.500/- as costs of this complaint within a month of receipt of this order. In default the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the supra awarded amount with 18% interest per annum from the date of default till realisation.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum this the 25th day of April, 2006.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite parties: Nil
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Buffalo purchase bill dated 20-3-2004 for Rs.15,000/-
Ex.A2 True copy of FIR dated 30-5-2004
Ex.A3 True copy of post-mortem certificate dated 19-6-2004
Ex.A4 Office copy of legal notice issued by complainant’s counsel to opposite
parties 1,2 and 3
Ex.A5 Postal receipts (3 in numbers) for sending Ex.A4
Ex.A6 Returned cover addressed to opposite party No.3
Ex.A7 Postal acknowledgement as to the receipt of Ex.A4 by opposite party
No.3
Ex.A8 Postal acknowledgement as to the receipts of Ex.A4 by opposite party
No.2
Ex.A9 Bill for photographs dated 30-5-2004 for Rs.100/-
Ex.A10 Two photographs along with negatives.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:- Nil
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Copy to:-
- Sri. D.M.Ramachandra Reddy, Advocate, Kurnool
- Sri. D.Srinivasulu, Advocate, Kurnool
Copy was made ready on:
Copy was dispatched on:
Copy was delivered to parties:
