Date of Filing: 25-11-2013
Date of Disposal: 25-07-2014
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTHAPURAMU
PRESENT: - Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., President (FAC).
Smt.M.Sreelatha, B.A., B.L., Lady Member.
Friday, the 25th day of July, 2014
C.C.NO.147/2013
Between:
Bolliboina Srinivasulu
S/o Govindappa
r/o Ankampalli Village,
Beluguppa Mandal,
Ananthapuramu District. …. Complainant
Vs.
Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution
Company Limited (APSPDCL), rep. by its
Superintending Engineer, J.N.T.U. Road
Ananthapuramu. …. Opposite party
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri B.Narayana Reddy, advocate for the complainant and Sri N.Ravi Kumar Reddy, Advocate for the Opposite party and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments on both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, President (FAC) : - This complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses, loss of income and compensation due to injuries caused in an electrical shock and interest from the date of accident till the date of realization.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: - The complainant is a permanent resident of B.C.Colony, Ankampalli Village, Beluguppa Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. The opposite party has provided electricity service to the house of the complainant in the name of his mother Smt.B.Thippamma vide service connection No.B101000365 and power supply was provided from the month of September, 2011.
3. Subsequently, on 25-11-2011 at about 6.00 P.M. when the complainant tried to recharge his mobile phone and when the plug of the charger was kept into the switch board socket, electricity passed into his body and caused grievous burn injuries to his right hand fingers and to his head. As a result, he fell unconscious. Then immediately he was rushed to the Government Hospital, Kalyandurg and later shifted to Dr.Linga Reddy’s Hospital, Vidapanakal and after preliminary treatment, he was admitted in Vaastalya Hospital at Ananthapuramuon 29-12-2011. Surgery was conducted for detriment and gown flap cover for exposed vitals on 30-12-2011 to his right hand and he was as inpatient till 04-01-2012. Further, he had to attend for regular checkups for 2 months on every alternative day, all the way from his Village to the said hospital at Ananthapurmu by spending much amount.
4. The complainant was hale and healthy before the above incident and he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month from agriculture and milk vending business as he owns Acs.6.00 of land. Due to electric shock, the complainant has lost his right hand fingers, which are crucial for doing any work by human being. As the complainant has lost his right hand fingers, he was unable to attend to his day-today works and required an attendant for his day-today activities. The complainant is the sole earning member of his family. Hence he was subjected to mental agony due to the said accident. Further the complainant submitted that due to the negligent act of the staff of opposite party safe electricity supply to the complainant’s house was not provided, which is nothing but deficiency of service and the complainant got electric shock due to the negligent act of the opposite party in not providing safe power supply. Subsequently, another incident took place in which one U.Sailaja D/o U.Lakshmanna of Ankampalli Village died due to electric shock on 02-01-2012 and a case was registered as Cr.No.01/2012 under section 174 Cr.P.C. by Beluguppa P.S. Later the opposite party through their Vigilance Wing an enquiry was conducted by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance, A.P.T.S. P.S. , Ananthapuramu and in the investigation it was found that the said incidents happened due to negligence of electricity department (i.e. opposite party) and a report was submitted to the Superintendent of Police, Chief Vigilance Officer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Hyderabad.
5. The complainant made representation to the opposite party for compensation but the opposite party has not taken any initiation to settle the matter. Later a legal notice was also issued on 16-03-2012, which was served on the opposite party but there was no reply. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses incurred, loss of income and compensation put-together.
6. Counter filed by the opposite party stating that all the allegations made in the complaint are not true and they are invented for the purpose of filing this case. The opposite party submitted that it is true that the complainant’s house was having electricity connection under service No.B101000365. Further the allegation that on 25-11-2011 when the complainant tried to recharge his mobile by plugging the charger into the socket of Switch Board, the complainant received shock and due to the shock he received burn injuries to his right hand fingers and head injury due to the fall on his back. Further, the allegation that the complainant was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and due to the electric shock he was unable to attend to his day-today works and he has to suffer mentally as he was the sole earning member of his family are all false and invented for the purpose of filing this complaint.
7. Further the allegations made in para 4 of the complaint are in no way connected to this case and the fact that the Vigilance Inspector has sent report mentioning that due to negligence of the department only the accidents have occurred is in no way connected to this case and further that report has to be proved in a civil court and this Forum has no jurisdiction to decide this type of case. Further it is submitted that as per the allegations made in the complaint that the complainant sustained burn injuries while charging his mobile and it is only due to the negligence on the part of the complainant that he received burn injuries. Further this opposite party is concerned only with 11 KV Lines and 33 KV Lines but not with the internal wiring and any internal incidents, which happen due to defect in the household wiring. Hence there are no grounds to allow the complaint and this Forum has no jurisdiction to deal with the case and liable to be dismissed with costs.
8. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:-
1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?
2. To what relief?
9. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit on his behalf and marked Ex.A1 to A6 documents. On behalf of the opposite party, evidence on affidavit of the opposite party has been filed and no documents are marked on behalf of the opposite party.
10. Heard on both sides.
11. POINT NO.1:- The case of the complainant is that the complainant is a permanent resident of B.C.Colony, Ankampalli Village, Beluguppa Mandal, Ananthapuramu District. The service connection bearing No.B101000365 is provided in the name of the complainant’s mother by the opposite party from the month of September, 2011. The counsel for the complainant submitted that on 25-11-2011 at about 6.00 P.M. when the complainant tried to recharge his mobile phone by plugging the charger in the Switch Board Socket received electrical shock and his right hand fingers were burnt and due to the fall there was head injuries and he became unconscious. Then the complainant was shifted to Government Hospital, Kalyandurg and later got admitted at Dr.Linga Reddy’s Hospital, Kalyandurg. Subsequently for better treatment he was admitted in Vaastalya Hospital at Ananthapuramu on 29-12-2011. The counsel for the complainant submitted that a surgery was conducted for detriment and gown flap cover for exposed vitals on 30-12-2011 to his right hand and he was as inpatient till 04-01-2012. Further the complainant was advised to visit the said hospital every alternate day for check-up.
12. The counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- from the agriculture land as he owns Ac.6.00 of land and also by milk vending. Due to electrical shock the complainant has lost his right hand fingers which are crucial for doing any work by human being. Due to the electric accident the complainant lost his right hand fingers and he was unable to do his day-today activities and was unable to attend the agriculture work and further he required an attendant for his personal activities. The counsel for the complainant further submitted that the complainant was the sole bread winner for his family. Due to the injuries he has to suffer mentally and financially.
13. The counsel for the complainant submitted that as the opposite party failed to provide safe electricity supply to the complainant’s house, the complainant was injured thereby the opposite party caused deficiency of service to the complainant, for which the opposite party is liable. Further the counsel for the complainant submitted that in a similar case one U.Sailaja D/o U.Lakshmanna of Ankampalli Village died due to electric shock on 02-01-2012 and a case was registered in Cr.No.01/12 under section 174 Cr.P.C. The case was investigated by the Inspector of Police , Vigilance and A.P.T.S., Ananthapuramu and found that the said two incidents happened due to the negligence of electricity Department as there was no proper earthing done at the Distribution Transformer and that was the reason for the above two incidents and the same was reported to the Superintendent of police and Chief Vigilance Officer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Hyderabad . Further the counsel argued that the above report clearly establishes that the complainant was injured in the electrical shock only due to improper earthing by the opposite party. Hence, they are liable to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards expenditure incurred by the complainant for operation and medical expenses and further as the complainant was sole bread earner for his family and due to the said electrical shock he was unable to attend to his day today works and thereby lost his earnings which also should be compensated by the opposite party. Further the counsel argued that even though the complainant made a representation to the opposite party for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the opposite party, there was no response from the opposite party for the same. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards medical expenses and loss of income and compensation put-together to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest from the date of accident till the date of realization.
14. The counsel for the opposite party submitted that the complaint is not maintainable as the complainant was injured in electrical shock in his house only and the said incident might have been happened due to improper wiring in his house. Further the counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite party is liable only for electrical shock happened in the lines run by the A.P.S.P.D.C.L., but not when the electrical shock happened in the complainant’s own premises. Further the counsel for the opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and it is for the complainant to prove that there is negligence on the part of the opposite party and due to it the complainant received shock. And it is a matter to be decided by a civil court but not by the Consumer Forum, as the negligence has to be proved. In the above circumstance’s, Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to decide the matter. Hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
15. After hearing the arguments by both side counsels and perusing the documents submitted by both sides, there is no dispute with regard to giving electricity service to the complainant’s house in the name of his mother. As per the arguments of the complainant, the complainant received electrical shock when the complainant tried to recharge his mobile phone. At the time of plugging the charger, the complainant received shock and fall on his back and there was some heady injury also and due to the electrical shock, his right hand fingers were burnt and then the complainant was shifted to hospital at Kalyandurg and from there shifted to Vaastlya Hospital, Ananthapuramu for better treatment. As seen from the documents submitted by the complainant, Ex.A2 document, which is a Discharge Summary clearly shows that the complainant was operated for Flap Cover for electrical burns with vitals exposed and the same was covered under Aroghya Sri Scheme. Hence the argument that the complainant has spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards operation and medical expenses cannot be considered and further the complainant has not filed any medical bills for the said claim. Another document Ex.A6 which is an investigation report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and A.P.T.S. P.S.,Ananthapuramu shows that there is negligence on the part of the opposite party in not providing the proper earthing to the SS-15 1-Phase DTR located at B.C. Colony and though the same was informed by the local people to the concerned Engineer (Operation), Sri Venakatesh Naik and ALM Sri Jagadeesh to arrange for proper earthing but they ignored to do proper earthing. This report clearly shows that there is negligence on the part of the opposite party, which in turn has caused electrical shock to the complainant in which the complainant lost his right hand fingers and also injuries to his head. The complainant has to undergo treatment for about one month and also lost his earnings.
16. Further as seen from the documents submitted by the complainant, no certificate is produced by the complainant to what extent the complainant is physically disabled in order to assess the compensation. No doubt the complainant was injured in the electrical shock only due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party, which shows that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as per Ex.A6 document, which is their own Vigilance Department Report submitted to the Superintendent of Police and Chief Vigilance Officer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the opposite party has caused deficiency of service to the complainant. Hence, the opposite party is liable to pay compensation. As the complainant has failed to prove the expenditure incurred by him, no amount is granted towards expenditure as Ex.A2 clearly shows that operation was conducted under Aroghya Sri Scheme. Hence, the opposite party is liable to pay to the complainant for deficiency of service and also for the loss of earnings due to electrical shock to the complainant and nominal expenses incurred by the complainant for treatment after surgery.
17. POINT NO.2 - In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses within one month from the date of this order; failing which interest shall be paid @ 12% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of realization.
Dictated to Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 25th day of July, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 - Photo copy of representation dt.15-02-2013 submitted by the complainant to
the Superintendent, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Ananthapuramu.
Ex.A2 - Photo copy of Discharge Summary relating to the complainant issued by
Vaatsalya Hospital, Ananthapuramu.
Ex.A3 - Office copy of legal notice dt.16-03-2012 got issued by the complainant to the
Opposite party.
Ex.A4- Postal Acknowledgement signed by the opposite party.
Ex.A5 - Original Electricity Bill dt.26-03-2013 issued by the Electricity Department
relating to the mother of the complainant.
Ex.A6 - Letter dt.10-02-2012 addressed by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and
APTS P.S.,Ananthapuramu to the Superintendent of Police and Chief
Vigilance Officer, A.PS.P.D.C.L., Hyderabad.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY
Sd/- Sd/-
LADY MEMBER, PRESIDENT(FAC),
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
ANANTHAPURAMU ANANTHAPURAMU
Typed by JPNN
