Per Smt T. Suneetha, Member:-

This complaint is filed U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, Seeking directions on opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- (5,00,000 for the death of 2^nd complainant and Rs.1,50,000/- for medical expenses etc., to the 1^st complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of electrocution i.e. 29-04-12) and costs of the complaint. 

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are here under:

          The 1^st complainant is the father of the late Miss. Chikkinam Susmitha who is represented by her mother Mrs.Nancharamma  as 2^nd complainant herein . Late. Miss.Chikkinam Susmitha aged about 15 years having passed tenth standard in 1^st class died due to electrocution on 29-04-11 at about 6.30 A.M. when the 1^st complainant was coming to his house the supporting iron wire of the electrical pole touched to the 1^st complainant and got electrocution.  Then the deceased daughter of 1^st complainant who was washing the clothes saw the said incident and went to the 1^st complainant to prevent from the electrocution.  But she got electrocuted and died.  At that time the nearest relative of the complainant by name K.Prasad S/o. Varaprasad called 108 ambulance to shift the deceased and  1^st complainant to the Government hospital, Repalle.  The government doctors checked the deceased thoroughly and declared that the 2^nd complainant was died and advised the 1^st complainant to Guntur General Hospital.

        On 29-04-11 the complainant’s relative Mr.K.Prasad gave a police complaint on the file of S.H.O., Nagaram police station and the same was registered Cr.No.31/11 U/s.174 of Cr.P.C.  There after the 1^st complainant spent more than Rs.1,50,000/- for medical expenses, nutrition, transport etc., but he is not in a position to do his normal works till today and sustained loss of Rs.300/- per a day as he being an agricultural labour.  The deceased 2^nd complainant was passed 10^th class in 1^st class and that the parents had full hopes on her that she will come to high position in future. 

        The 1^st opposite party being responsible institute failed to see the fitness of supporting wire of electrical pole and also to maintain proper system in the village to prevent the electric supply in the supporting wire of electrical poles fitted in the earth. 

          The 2^nd opposite party being a District Administrative Officer failed to ascertain such kind of accidents in the rural areas where the people are illiterates or semi-illiterates. 

        The complainant approached 1^st opposite party and requested to pay the compensation.  But there is no response.  There after the complainants issued registered legal notice dated 29-03-2012 to the opposite parties.  The 2^nd opposite party received the notice but failed to reply.  The 1^st opposite party did not even receive the notice.  Being a government organization the 1^st opposite party failed to receive the registered notice which is an act of negligence on the part of 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st complainant besides loosing his daughter sustained  injuries and was unable to do his regular work and so he sustained huge loss due to the negligence of opposite parties 1&2 which is deficiency of service on their part. Thus the complaint. 

3.      The 2^nd opposite party was set exparte on 25-02-2013.

4.      1^st Opposite parties filed its version which is in brief as follows. 

          The then Additional Assistant Engineer i.e.,1^st respondent received a phone massage on 29-04-11 at about 7 A.M that an electrocution occurred at S.C. Colony of Bellamvaripalem at 11 K.V. power supply to the feeder was switched off.  Immediately he rushed to the spot along with his staff that the complainant’s extended G.I. wire from their window on one side and tied other side to the supporting wire of the pole which is situated infront of their house.  They are in the habit of putting the wet cloths to dry on the G.I. wire every day and so the supporting wire might have got disturbed on the top of the pole and electricity might have passed to the G.I. wire.  The 1^st respondent observed that on 29-04-11 the deceased while putting the wet cloths on that wire got electric shock and died.  In order to save the girl the 1^st complainant have touched her as a result of which he also received the shock.  The 1^st opposite party informed the same to police vide his letter dated 29-04-11 and to his higher ups.  The Junior Lineman D.Jeorge warned the complainant number of times to remove the said G.I. wire since it is dangerous in nature at any point of time.  But they did not here the words of junior linemen.  The responsibility and care to be exercised by the Department for safe supply of the electricity to the consumers are laid down in the provisions of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956.  In this case the 1^st opposite party took all the care for safe supply of electricity , but due to the negligence of complainant despite the warning given by the junior linemen they lost their daughter and 1^st complainant sustained injuries. 

5.     There is neither negligence nor deficiency of service on the part of 1^st opposite party.  The complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 

6.      The complainant and opposite parties filed their respective affidavits. Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked on behalf of the complainant.  Exs.B-1 is marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

7.      Now the points that arose for consideration in this          complaint are:      

1.  Whether the opposite parties committed deficiency of Service?

2.  To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

8.      POINTNO.1:-Thecomplainant’s allegation is that the 1^st complainant got electrocuted by touching the supporting wire of the pole and his deceased daughter (on whose behalf the 2^nd complainant filed the case) who was washing clothes, tried to save her father and died. 

9.     Opposite parties contention is that the complainant’s  were in the habit of drying cloths on G.I.wire which is connected to the supporting wire and the window of the house of the complainant despite lineman D.Jeorge  warning. On the date of accident the deceased daughter of the complainant might have died due to electrocution while she was putting the wet cloths on G.I. wire  and her father i.e. 1^st complainant might have tried to save her and got electrocuted. The inquest report Ex:A5 revealed that the deceased while she was putting the wet clothes dry she saw her father electrocuted by touching the supporting wire of the electric pole  and tried to save by pulling his hand  subsequently got electrocuted and died .The relevant portion of the report is extracted below:

The Ex.A-4 the letter addressed by Mr.K.Prasad to the Police Officer also revealed as above .The relevant portion  is extracted below:

           The scene of accident narrated in  the  complaint and of  the above documents  are doubtful . As per the complaint it is the  1^st complainant who was electrocuted first by touching the supporting wire. But his  deceased daughter sustained more injuries  than the 1^st complainant and died .Not even single document of the medical expences pertaining to 1^st complainant is filed.   The observations in the post- mortem report EX:A6 f the deceased are given under for better appreciation:

1. A  chaned burn wound of 3” x 2” on the back of left fore arm

2. A chained burn wound of”1x2”over the back of the left hand

3.  A  chained burn wound on the right hand index and ring finger of

     1”x1”each

4.  Two burn wounds of 1cmx1cm over the last ring and little finger      

    5.   Hyoid bone is intact. Heart is pale and both Lungs are congested

          on…side  

    (b) Cause  of death to the best of my knowledge is Cadio respiratory

          arrest due to Electric Shock.   

           In the letter drafted by Mr.K.Prasad there is mention about the cutting of wire by deceased’s maternal uncle Mr. DasariRajesh . There is no explanation about   the said wire.  As per the complaint the 1^st complainant electrocuted on touching the supporting wire of the pole . In the situation adverse inference can be drawn that the wire cut by the deceased’s uncle Mr.Dasari Rajesh was G.I wire which is tied one side to the supporting wire of the pole and the other side to the window of the complainants’s house and deceased electrocuted while drying wet clothes on that wire. The allegation made by the opposite party about G.I wire  in version dt:25-3-2013  was not denied by the complainants  in affidavit dt:9-4-2013 .Due to hanging of cloths since  long time   on the G.I.wire connected to supporting wire it must have disturbed at the top of the pole due to complainants drying of cloths, and electrified which is completely the fault of the complainants themselves .There is no deficiency of service  on the part of opposite parties.

             The complainants/deceased might be ignorant and no doubt the   complainant’s situation is regretful. But for the ignorance of the complainants, opposite parties cannot be penalized .Since there is no deficiency of service on the part of  opposite  parties to compensate the complainants.

        The following citations submitted by complainant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 

1.     IV (2012) CPJ 197 (NC) Sajjan Sachdeva & Another versus Punjab State Electricity Board and others. 

2.     I (2013) CPJ 159(NC) Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Versus Parthu & another. 

3.     I (2013) CPJ 693 (NC) APSPDCL & another versus Bujamma & others. 

4.     In F.A.No.640/2010 against CC No.262/09(NC)between Kum.Kotyada Talupulamma Versus M/s. Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Limited and another. 

10.    In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 21st day of June, 2013.

MEMBER                                 MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For 1^st opposite party: -

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT     

NB:   The parties are required to collect the extra sets within a month after receipt of this order either personally or through their advocate as otherwise the extra sets shall be weeded out.