JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER

           Late Shri C.J. Krishna, husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainants No. 2 to 4 was going on a Moped to attend his duty in Tirupathi on 22.4.2011.  When he reached Manglampet Road at about 5.30 a.m., he came into contact with a live 11 KV electrical wire and died.  Alleging deficiency on the part of the APSPDCL (Andhra Pradesh Southern Power Distribution Company Ltd.), the complainants approached the concerned State Commission by way of a consumer complaint, seeking compensation.  It was also alleged in the complaint that the respondents APSPDCL had not properly supervised the live wire, which got disconnected from the pole and caused death of the deceased.

2.     The complaint was resisted by the respondent APSPDCL, which inter-alia stated in its reply that on account of heavy rain, thunderstorm etc. in the night, the 11 KV wire had fallen on the ground and since the deceased was driving without taking proper care and caution, he came into contact with the live wire and died. 

3.     The State Commission vide its order dated 30.10.2014, held the respondents negligent in performance of their pubic duties and awarded compensation quantified at Rs.10,30,000/- to the complainants, out of which Rs.4,35,000/- was to go to complainant No.1 whereas Rs.2,00,000/- each was to go the complainants No. 2 to 4, along with cost of Rs.5,000/-.  

4.     Being aggrieved from the quantum of compensation awarded to them, the complainants are before this Commission by way of FA/192/2017. 

5.     The Respondent APSPDCL also being dissatisfied with the order passed by the State Commission it is also before this Commission by way of FA/706/2018.         The case of APSPDCL is that there was no negligence on its part in maintaining the electricity pole and wires. 

6.     There is a delay of 773 days in institution of appeal by the complainants whereas there is a delay of 1234 days in institution of appeal filed by APSPDCL.

7.     I have heard the learned counsel for APSPDCL.  No-one has appeared for the complainants to argue the appeal filed by them. 

8.     Since there is substantial delay on the part of both the parties in filing their respective appeals, it would be appropriate to examine both the appeals on merits instead of them as barred by limitation.  The delay in institution of the appeals is therefore, condoned.

9.     It is not in dispute that the deceased had died on account of electrocution.  The post-mortem report clearly shows that the deceased had died due to electric shock and had sustained severe burn injuries.  In any case this is not the case of APSPDCL that the deceased had not died on account of electrocution.

10.   The inquest report would show that an electricity pole existed at a distance of 20 ft. from the place where the dead body of the deceased was found.  One 11 KV electricity line was found going from southern side to northern side.  One wire from the southern pole was found lying on the northern side, on the road.  Thus, the question which arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether there was any negligence on the part of APSPDCL in maintenance of the electric pole and 11 KV electricity line or not.

11.   The case of APSPDCL is that the wire had got detached from the pole on account of heavy rains and thunderstorm.  It is not in dispute that the deceased had come into contact with a live wire.  This would mean that only one side of the wire had got detached from the pole and the other side was still connected to it.  Had the wire broken from both the ends and fallen on the road, there would have been no electricity in the wire and the deceased would not have got electrocuted. 

12.   No expert evidence was produced by the respondent APSPDCL in FA/192/2017 to prove that a 11 KV wire, which is bound to be a strong wire can get detached on account of the rain and thunderstorm, even if such a wire is properly maintained by the service provider.  In my opinion, had the 11 KV line been properly maintained and supervised and had all the safety measures been in place, the live wire would not have snapped from the pole and one side of the said live wire would not have fallen on the road.  The electricity transmitted through an 11 KV wire is bound to be of a very high voltage and therefore, an extra duty was cast upon APSPDCL to constantly maintain and monitor the electric pole and 11 KV wires and keep them in good condition to prevent any such mishap, since rains and thunderstorms being natural calamities, are bound to keep on happening.  The duty of the service provider becomes more onerous when the 11 KV line is passing through a main road since there is always a risk of the one or more users of the road getting electrocuted if a live wire gets detached from the electric pole and one end of the wire falls on the road.

13.   The State Commission, while holding APSPDCL negligent and deficient in rendering services, referred to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar, 2002 (2) ALD 4 (SC), which to the extent it is relevant reads as under:

        “6.    It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board.  If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy.  So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril.”

14.   Despite precious human lives having been lost on account of electrocution, there is no evidence of an enquiry having been held by APSPDCL into the incident of the electrocution.  This is not the case of the Corporation that they had contacted an impartial and fair enquiry into the incident and had found that there had been no negligence in the upkeep and maintenance of the 11 KV line.

15.   Though, the State Commission took the view that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased since he could have noticed the snapped wire and could have averted coming into the contact of the    said wire, the said view, in my opinion, was not justified considering that the incident happened at about 5.30 a.m. in the month of April and it is the case of APSPDCL itself that the weather was quite bad, on account of rain and thunderstorm in the night.

16.   Though, it has been contended by the APSPDCL that the deceased cannot be said to be a consumer of the Corporation, I find no merit in the contention.  It is not in dispute that APSPDCL was entrusted with the distribution and management of the electric supply in Tirupathi.   The Corporation charges for the electricity which it supplies for various purposes such as domestic purposes, commercial purposes and industrial purposes, though it may or may not be charging for the street lighting provided in the town.  One possibility that it was charging from the concerned Municipality, whereas other possibility is that the cost of the providing street lights was being met by APSPDCL, out of the revenue, which it was collecting from those to whom electric connections were provided by it for different purposes.  Either way, the Corporation would be a service provider for consideration though; the consideration may have been received either from the concerned Municipality or from the consumers to whom electricity was being supplied by it for domestic, commercial and industrial purposes.  A guidance in this regard may be taken from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Medical Association Vs. V.P. Shantha & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 651 wherein the context of medical negligence in respect of a patient who is not charged in a hospital, the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter-alia held as under:

“55.   On the basis of the above discussion, we arrive at the following conclusion:

(8) Service rendered at a non-government hospital/nursing home where charges are required to be paid by persons who are in position to pay and persons who cannot afford to pay are rendered service free of charge would fall within the ambit of the expression ‘service’ as defined in Section 2(1)(o) of the Act irrespective of the fact that the service is rendered free of charge to persons who are not in a position to pay for such services.  Free service, would also be ‘service’ and the recipient a ‘consumer’ under the Act.”

17.   In C.G.M., P & O, NPDCL & Ors., Koppu Duddarajam & Anr. IV (2008) CPJ 139 (NC) a live high tension wire fell on farmer sitting in front of Gram Panchayat office, resulting in his death.  A consumer complaint, alleging negligence on the part of the NPDCL, Warangal was filed.  The complaint was contested by the company, which claimed that the electricity wire had suddenly fallen on the roof of the Gram Panchayat building into a gale.  Dismissing the revision petition filed by the company, this Commission inter-alia held that the deceased was a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act since village Panchayat was paying for the electricity supply to its office as well as for the street lights and the villagers were paying taxes to the village panchayat. 

18.   For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no merit in the FA/706/2018 instituted by APSPDCL and the same is liable to be dismissed.

19.   Coming to the appeal filed by the complainants, the State Commission assessed the total loss of dependency at Rs.18,58,320/-.  After making deduction towards the personal expenses of the deceased had he been alive, the loss of dependency was held to be Rs.13,93,740/-.  The State Commission also upheld addition of Rs.1.00 lacs on account of loss of consortium Rs.25,000/- towards loss of estate, and
Rs. 25,000/- towards funeral expenses, coming to an aggregate of Rs.15,43,740/-.  However, a deduction of Rs.5,14,580/- from that amount was made on the ground that the deceased had also contributed to his death.  After such deductions, the State Commission assessed the amount payable to the complainants at Rs.10,30,000/-, along with cost of litigation quantified at Rs.5,000/-.  In my opinion, considering the time at which this incident happened and the weather prevailing at the time of this incident, the deceased cannot be said to have contributed to his death and therefore, deduction of Rs.5,14,580/- was not justified.  The State Commission therefore ought to have awarded the above referred sum of Rs.15,43,740/- to the complainants, alongwith the cost of litigation. I also find that no interest was awarded by the State Commission to the complainants.   

FA/192/2017 filed by the complainants is therefore, partly allowed by directing the respondents in the said appeal to pay a sum of Rs.15,43,740/- to the complainants alongwith cost of litigation quantified at Rs.5,000/-.  Out of the aforesaid amount Rs.2.00 lacs each shall be paid to the complainants No. 2 to 4 and the balance amount would be paid to complainant No.1.  The compensation apportioned in favour of the minor complainants shall be deposited in a nationalized bank in terms of the order of the State Commission, unless one or more of them have already attained the age of majority.  If anyone of them has attained the age of majority, the amount payable to him shall be paid to him instead of depositing the same in a nationalized bank, in terms of the order of the State commission.  Since the complainants, in my view are entitled to an appropriate interest on the awarded amount with effect from the date of institution of the complaint, it is therefore, directed that in addition to the above referred principal amount, they shall also be entitled to interest @ 8% per annum on the above referred principal amount of Rs.15,43,740/- with effect from the date of the institution of the complaint.