Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/362/2019

Sri Marappa S/o Hanumanthappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Executive Engineer of Rural Sub Division, BESCOM - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. Parthalingappa.R.N

20 Jun 2022

ORDER

                         Filed On:  17/06/2019.

                         Disposed  On: 20/06/2022.

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT CHITRADURGA

 

CC No: 362/2019

Dated:20th June 2022

 

PRESENT:-      Sri.M.I.SHIGLI, PRESIDENT

                                B.A., LL.M

                            Sri. G.SREEPATHI, MEMBER

                                    B.Com. LL.B  

          Smt.B.H. YASHODA, LADY MEMBER

                               B.A. LL.B

             

COMPLAINANT/s:-	Sri Marappa, S/o.Hanumanthappa, Age: about 28 years,     Rep.by : Sri.R.N.Parthalingappa, Advocate
OPPOSITE PARY :-	Assistant Executive Engineer of Rural Sub Division, BESCOM, Behind DC Office, Chitradurga.   Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Behind DC Office, Chitradurga.   Rep.by : Sri.T.K.Chandrasheker Rao, Advocate

 

 

ORDER

 

By Sri.M.I.SHIGLI, PRESIDENT 

 

        The present complaint is filed by the complainant u/s.12 of CP Act 1986 seeking direction against OPs to pay compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- in all on account of alleged negligence and deficiency of service as they have not taken necessary steps in covering live wire whereof the complainant sustained disability and loss of earning capacity.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

1. The complainant is stated to be agriculturist and has obtained electric connection from OPs under Akrama –Sakrama.
2. That on 18.06.2018 when the complainant was working in his field between 5PM to 6PM due to the negligence of the OP, the complainant got electric shock to his right hand and burns over his right shoulder. Immediately the complainant is stated to have been shifted to hospital in Davanagere and then to Manipal Hospital, where his right hand upto shoulder is amputated. It is averred that the complainant incurred Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.1,00,000/- towards nourishment and Rs.50,000/- towards traveling.
3. As the land in question was owned by his father Hanumappa who had obtained power supply from OP.2 he resides with his father he becomes beneficiary and there is deficiency of service by the OPs, he sought for the total compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- in aggregate under different heads
4. On the contrary the OP has traversed all the contentions of complainant  and has contended that, all the averments of the complaint are false and fabricated. The OP denied all allegations against them and contended interalia that,
   1. The complaint is flagrant abuse of process of law.
   2. Complainant is not a consumer within the purview of CP Act.
   3. He can’t be a complainant as defined u/s.2(1)(b) of CP Act 1986 (referred to as Act, for brevity hereafter).
   4. Complainant has no locus standi.
   5. Complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary party.
   6. Complaint is barred by limitation.
5. The OP No.1 has specifically contended that on the date of the incident “………..the complainant came to this land afternoon. At about 5 to 6 PM the complainant found that there was no electric supply to the pump set. The fuse in transformer of 25 KVA was blown out. The complainant came near double pole structure without lightening any of the employers went to the transformer centre and with the help of a stick try to renew the fuse in the transformer but failed to renew……” The complainant unauthorizedly, negligently with bare hand without informing the employees of OP climbed the double pole to renew the fuse and while doing so he sustained electric burn injuries. This act of complainant is illegal and against the Electricity Rule of 2010. This accident has occurred due to illegal and unauthorized and negligent act of complainant. And the OPs have sought for dismissal of complaint.
6. After the matter is being set for evidence, the complainant himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A5 and closed his side. The OP No.1 has examined his witness as DW-1 and marked documents Ex.R1 to R7 and closed his side. Counsels for both sides have submitted their written arguments with memo of citation.
7. Heard oral submissions and written arguments.

 

8. The following points arises for our consideration
   1. Whether the complainant proves that he is the consumer of OPs and there is deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
   2. Whether complainant is entitled for compensation as sought for?
   3. What Order ?

Our findings on the above points are:

Point No.1: Negative

Point No.2: Negative

Point No.3: As per final order for the following

 

REASONS

9. Points.1&2: The first and foremost thing the complainant shall have to prove that, he shall fall within the definition of “Consumer” as defined u/s.2(1)(b) of C.P.Act 1986.
10. One can’t be obvious of the fact that, a person in order to be a consumer, be a purchaser of goods for consideration and one who availed service for consideration. And the service that he has availed must be a service as contemplated u/s.2(1)(o) of C.P.Act 1986. And the service so provided must be deficient service as prescribed u/s.2(1)(g) of the Act. The cursory reading of the above (Provisions), with reference to the contents of complaint calls for an irresistible inference that the complainant can’t be a consumer as the material ingredient of consideration is absent.
11. Though the counsel for the complainant has done his best to convince us that the complainant is the consumer who has availed service of the OPs. But given the facts tend us to form an opinion that the complainant is not a consumer of the OPs “stricto senso”.
12. It is a fact that the counsel Sri.RNP has drawn our attention to Ex.A4 the bills issued by the OP and Ex.A5 the RTC extract, which demonstrates that his father one Hanumappa is the owner of the property. But he has failed in his effort in convincing us that, the disputed IP Set exists in his land. Not only that, the complainant is not able to prove his assertion that there was gross negligence on the part of OPs in taking care of supply of power and the fuse was blown up in the transformer. It’s not the case of the complainant that the OPs had a duty to maintain the transformer in order, and due to which the fuse was blown up. The version of the complainant is totally silent over this aspect and there is no iota of evidence to demonstrate the fact that OPs have failed in discharging their duty.
13. We don’t find any force in the argument of the counsel for complainant that by virtue of Ex.A4 issued by OPs office, the complainant shall be consumer of OPs. But how the concept of deficiency of service could be attributed to the OPs? is the pivotal point for our attention. And we are of the view that the complainant is not able to prove that the act of the OPs is negligence and that tantamount to deficiency of service.
14. The complainant has pleaded in para-6 of his complaint that “….that the above incident has been occurred due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and 2 since they have not taken necessary steps in covering the live wire which has gone through their land of complainant….” But even the preceding paras of the complaint also do not make out a case of negligence as expected deficiency on the part of OPs. In fact it is hard to understand that how the live wires could be covered? And which act in particular amounts to deficient service. We are also forced to observe that, the complainant is not able to prove his allegations with the support of independent/ neighbouring land owner who could have witnessed the incident. 
15. In the backdrop of this analysis of facts, we turn our attention to the defence side, wherein the OPs have lead their evidence and got marked at Ex.R1 to R7. Ex.R7 is the report of the incident submitted by Executive Engineer, Ex.R2 is the fact finding report of the incident, Ex.R3 is the internal correspondence and a report of the Branch Officer to that of the Dy. Superintending Engineer. Ex.R4 is the pictorial sketch of the place of incident, whereas Ex.R5 is the Form “A” reporting electrical accident, Ex.R6 is the finding of the spot inspection report as to the true facts.
16. The counsel for OPs drawn our attention to Ex.R6 with reference to Ex.R1 to R5 which makes it clear that the complainant on his own volition has climbed the transformer double pole and with the help of a stick tried to renew the blown out fuse and could not do so. And while doing that venture, has come in contact with II KV live wire and due to shock has fallen down. It’s an admitted fact that the complainant has sustained electric shock but the same is stated to be not fatal as per Ex.R6. The counsel for OPs on the contrary canvassed the theory that the complainant himself is the wrong doer who has violated Rule 19(3) of Central Electricity Authority Regulation 2010.
17. Rebutting the submissions of the learned counsel for the OPs, Sri.RNP learned counsel also submits that Ex.A1 demonstrates that, it was a Medico Legal Case (MLC) as per document issued by RMO, SSIMS&RC, Davanagere and there is a failure of concerned police to register FIR. But we do not find any relevance of such submission, which changes the fate of this case. In the light of the above we are of the opinion that Point No.1 is to be answered in the negative.
18. As far as second point for consideration is concerned, the complainant could have been entitled to the relief of compensation, if he were to have proved Point no.1 in his favour. And without any further discussion on this issue, we are constrained to hold that, Point No.2 is also to be answered in the negative.
19. Point No.3: For the reasons discussed above, our finding on Point No.3 is as per the following

::ORDER::

The complaint filed by the complainant u/s.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 is hereby dismissed, as the same is devoid of merits.

The parties shall bear their own costs.

        Supply free copy of this order to both parties.

 

(Dictated to stenographer and typed in computed and transcribed him, verified and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this 20^th June 2022)

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

Msr

 

ANNEXURES

 

1. Witness examined on behalf of complainant:

PW-1- Marappa S/o.Hanumanthappa

 

 

2. Witness examined on behalf of opponents:

DW-1- J.Ramesh, S/o.Late A.Jogaiah

 

3. Documents marked on behalf of complainant:

1. Ex.A-1- True copy of the case sheet
2. Ex.A-2 – Original case summary
3. Ex.A-3 – Medical Bills
4. Ex.A-4 – Electricity Bills
5. Ex.A-5 – Copy of RTC

 

4. Documents marked on behalf of opponents:

1. Ex.R-1- Report of Executive Engineer, BESCOM
2. Ex.R-2- Report of Asst.Executive Engineer, BESCOM
3. Ex.R-3- Report of Section Officer, BESCOM
4. Ex.R-4- Sketch of the accident spot
5. Ex.R-5- Form-A report of electrical accident with photos
6. Ex.R-6- Report of Electrical Inspectorate, Davanagere
7. Ex.R-7- Extract of Central Electricity Authority Regulation 2010 s.19(3)

 

 

 

LADY MEMBER               MEMBER                 PRESIDENT

Msr