Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/112/2017

Nagalakshmi W/o Thippeswamy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Assistant Executive Engineer, - Opp.Party(s)

Nazibulla

27 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

COMPLAINT FILED ON:10/11/2017

DISPOSED      ON:27/04/2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

 

C.C.NO: 112/2017

 

DATED: 27^th APRIL 2018

PRESENT: - SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH  : PRESIDENT                                   B.A., LL.B.,

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B., PGDCLP  

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	1. Smt. Nagalakshmi, W/o Late Thippeswamy, Age: 35 Years,   2. Smt. Hanumakka, W/o Late Hanumanthaiah, Age 80 Years,   3. T. Sandeepa, S/o Late Thippeswamy, Age: 12 Years,   4. T. Sudarshan, S/o Late Thippeswamy, Age: 10 Years,   Since OP No.3 and 4 are minors, represented by their natural guardian mother Smt. Nagalakshmi W/o Late Thippeswamy. All are r/o Havalenahalli village, Turuvanur Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk and District.   (Reptd. By Sri. P.S.Sathyanarayana Rao, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele), Sub-Division (Town), BESCOM, Chitradurga.   2. The Executive Engineer (Ele), O & M Circle, BESCOM, Chitradurga.   3. The Chief Engineer(Ele), O & M Circle, Opp: RTO Office, BESCOM, Chitradurga.   (Reptd. By Sri. M. Umesh, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.17,00,000/- towards compensation with interest, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs and such other reliefs.  

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant is that, the husband of the complainant by name late Thippeswamy is having agricultural land measuring 4-acre, 13-guntas in sy.No.520/4B situated in Avalenahalli village, Turuvanur Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk.  He was doing agricultural work along with animal husbandry and earning Rs.20,000/- to 30,000/- every month from the same.  The complainant family is having electrical connection to the borewell under RR No.AVAIP-2367 dated 06.02.2012 from the OP company and growing crops by feeding water from the borewel.  The duty of the OPs is to maintain the electric live wire which passes through the lands of the complainant and other farmers.  Such being the case, the poles which are installed in the lands of farmers in the locality were in fallen condition.  The same was intimated to the OP company by the husband of the complainant and other farmers of the locality to rectify the same but, the OPs never taken any care to rectify the problems.  It is further submitted that, on 30.06.2017, the husband of the complainant deceased Thippeswamy was going to the borewell to start the motor, by that time, the said Thippeswamy came in contact with electric live wire and fell on the ground, which was due to the electric grounding.  The other Pump sets of the locality were also burnt due to the electric grounding.  The same was intimated to the wife of said Thippeswamy by the neighbourers.  Immediately, he was shifted to Turuvanur Hospital and the Doctors in the said Hospital told that, he was died.  The entire family is depending on the said Thippeswamy and due to his death, his family comes to street.  Complainant No.1 is the wife, complainant No.2 is the mother and complainants No.3 and 4 are the sons of said deceased.  After the incident, the complainant approached the OP company seeking compensation but, the OPs failed to settle the claim.  At last on 07.10.2017, the complainant send a legal notice to the OP but, the OPs never taken any care to settle the claim.     Due to the negligence of the OPs, the said incident occurred and future of the said thippeswamy was destroyed.  The complainants have suffered heavy loss, mental agony due to the death of their earning member in the family at the early age.  Non settling of the claim by the OPs is a deficiency in service on their part.  The cause action for this complaint arose on 30.06.2017 when the said Thippeswamy was died due to electrocution and the legal notice was issued on 07.10.2017 which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and prayed for allow the complaint.

3.      After service of notice, OPs appeared through Sri. M. Umesh, Advocate and filed version.   According to the version filed by OPs, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  Further taken a contention that, the complainant has not made the PDO, Grama Panchayath and Police Officer as necessary parties to the proceedings.  The deceased Thippeswamy himself has committed mistake and due to his own negligence, the incident has occurred.  The deceased Thippeswamy had taken electric connection from the mains and he has not taken care to remove the wire which was skin out.  According to the Police report and Electrical Inspectorate, the husband of the complainant has remove the wire from his hand, it is purely a negligence on the part of deceased Thippeswamy.  Further it is stated that, if any incident happened due to short circuit or electric shock, there is a separate Forum for seeking redressal of relief.  The property for deciding the electrical death is a Deputy Electrical Inspectorate of State Government.  But, the complainant never approached the Committee as stated above.  Further the allegations made in the complaint are denied as false and it is stated that, it has not received any technical report with regard to the cause of death, time and place of said Thippeswamy.   Terefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part and prays for dismissal of the complaint.           

4.      The complainant No.1 has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-19 were got marked and closed their side.  On behalf of OPs, one Sri. Thimmarayappa, Assistant Executive Engineer has examined as DW-1 by filing their respective affidavits and relied no documents Ex.B-1 to B-6 and closed their side.     

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

1. Whether the complainants prove that, the deceased Thippeswamy was died due to electric shock and the OPs have not maintained the electric live wire properly and committed deficiency of service and entitled for the relief as prayed for?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

          Point No.1:- Partly in affirmative.

          Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      Point No.1:-  It is not in dispute that, the deceased Thippeswamy is having agricultural land bearing Sy.No.520/4B situated at Avalenahalli village, Turuvanur Village, Chitradurga Taluk.  There is a borewell in the said agricultural land and had taken electrical connection to the same under RR No.AVAIP-2367.  On 30.06.2017, the husband of the complainant No.1 by name Thippeswamy went to his land to start the borewell to feed water to the crops grown in the land.  By that time, due to electric shock, the said Thippeswamy was died.  As per the documents produced by the Police Authority, the complaint given by the complainant No.1, the Mahaza conducted by the Police and the statements recorded by the neighbourer ie., Suraiah S/o Hanumaiah, Gowramma W/o Rayanna, S.P. Palaiah S/o Sanna Papaiah, the report submitted by the PSI, Turuvanur Police Station shows that, the death is occurred due to electrocution.  The Ex.A-10 the P.M. report shows that, “the death is due to electric burn injury”, which indicates that, the death is due to electrocution, which clearly shows that, there is a negligence on the part of OPs in taking care of the electric live which was passed through the electric poles.  It is pertinent to note that, on the date of incident, the pump sets of the adjacent farmers were burnt due to short circuit. Prima-facie it shows the negligence on the part of OPs in maintaining the electric live wires.  Ex.A-1 shows that, on 30.06.2017 “ F WÀl£ÉAiÀÄÄ ªÀÄÈvÀ w¥ÉàøÁé«ÄAiÀĪÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¨ÉÆÃgï ªÉ¯ïUÉ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀð ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝ mÁæ£ïì ¥sÁªÀÄðgï ¥ÉnÖUÉAiÀÄ°è ªÉÊAiÀÄgïUÀ¼ÀÄ KgÀÄ¥ÉÃgÁV UËæAqï DVzÀÝjAzÀ ªÀÄÈvÀ w¥ÉàøÁé«Ä AiÀĪÀgÀ ¨ÉÆÃgïªÉ¯ï£À ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¥ÀA¥ï ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ CPÀÌ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ d«ÄãÀÄUÀ¼À°èzÀÝ ¨ÉÆÃgï ªÉ¯ïUÀ¼À ªÉÆÃmÁgï ¥ÀA¥ï ¸ÉmïUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀÄlÄÖ ºÉÆÃV ¦AiÀiÁðzÀÄzÁgÀgÀ d«Ää£À°èzÀÝ ªÉÊAiÀÄgï UËæAqï DVzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ w¥ÉàøÁé«ÄAiÀĪÀjUÉ vÀUÀÄ° ªÀÄÈvÀ ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¸À¯ÁVzÉ”.  The said document itself supports the case of complainants showing that, the BESCOM has not maintained the electric live wire properly.  The Doctor has given his opinion in Ex.A-10 i.e., Post mortem report that “death is due to electric burn injury”, which shows the negligence and deficiency of service by them.       

9.   We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainants.  After going through the documents it clearly shows that, on 30.06.2017 the case was registered in UDR No.0006/2017 before the Turuvanur Police.  As per the documents available on record it is clearly shows that, the BESCOM Authorities have supplied electrical connection to the borewells of the different farmers in the locality and given service to the borewells in the locality.   That means OPs agrees that they have made deficiency in service in not covering the live wire which has coming from the electric borewells with safety measures.  Hence, the above said points clearly shows that the OPs have made deficiency in service. 

As per the available citations of I (2005) CPJ 778 in the case of N. Kunchi Babu and another Vs. A.P. Transco Hyderabad and others, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that;

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) – electricity –wires touching balcony of house – minor daughter electrocuted, became physically disabled – failure to maintain minimum distance as per norms of Electricity Act -  deficiency in service proved – O.P. liable to pay compensation and medical expenses – cost awarded.   

 

   As per the Citation of IV (2008) CPJ 139 (NC) in the case of C.G.M., P & O, NPDCL & Ors Vs. Koppu Duddarajam and another wherein it has been held that;

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g) and 14(1)(d) – Electricity – Electrocution – Live wire fell on deceased – Severe electrocution and spot death resulted – Villagers pay taxes to Village Panchayats and power consumption charges to electricity company, are consumers – Complainants being beneficiaries entitled to compensation – Complaint allowed by Forum – Order upheld in appeal – No interference required in revision.”

 

Hence, the above citations of the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble National Commission are applicable to the case on hand and as per the above cited citations, the OPs are liable for payment of compensation to the complainant.   

10.    Then the main question comes before the Forum is that, what is the quantum has to be paid to the complainants.  As per the documents produced by the complainants and as per the recent guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the husband complainant No.1 was succumbed to the electrocution whose age was 59 years, he was an agriculturist and there will earnings from him and on the basis of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we would like to take notional income for an earning member as Rs.84,960/- p.a and age of the deceased is 59 years and as per Sarala Varma’s citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the multiplier will comes to 15.  Then the loss of love affection to the complainants from deceased will be Rs.84,960 X 100% X 15 = Rs.12,74,400/-, and to award Rs.50,000/- towards love and affection including funeral expenses is to be ordered.  So, in all, the complainants are entitled to get for the amount of Rs.13,24,400/-.

11.    Hence, as discussed above in above paras, we come to the conclusion that, the complainants are entitled to get the compensation of Rs.13,24,400/- from OPs along with interest as they have not taken precautionary measures to cover the live wire and made the deficiency in service in not taking proper steps to safe guard the public interest.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.    

  12.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainant U/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,24,400/- to the complainants along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.

Out of which, the complainant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.

It is further ordered that, the complainant No.2 and 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- each along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of this complaint till realization, the same is ordered to deposit in any Nationalized Bank till attaining their majority.  The complainant No.1 is at liberty to draw the interest from the deposited amount for the benefit of minors once in three months.    

 It is ordered that, the complainant No.4 is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,24,400/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.

   It is ordered that, the complainant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and  Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 60 days from the date of this order.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 27/04/2018 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

 

                                     

 MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

 

PW-1:  Complainant No.1 by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

 

DW-1: Sri. G.Thimmaraya, AEE by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

 

01	Ex-A-1:-	Charge sheet
02	Ex-A-2:-	UDR report
03	Ex-A-3:-	Complaint dated 30.06.2017
04	Ex.A-4:	Restatement of complainant
05	Ex.A-5:-	Spot Panchanama
06	Ex.A-6:-	Police report under Sec.174 of Cr.P.C
07	Ex.A-7:-	Statement of Suraiah
08	Ex.A-8:-	Statement of Gowramma
09	Ex.A-9:-	Statement of S.P. Palaiah
10	Ex.A-10:-	P.M. report
11	Ex.A-11:-	R of R
12	Ex.A-12:-	Statement of Thippeswamy
13	Ex.A-13	Statement of Kenchamma
14	Ex.A-14:-	Statement of Eranna
15	Ex.A-15:-	Statement of Hanumanthappa
16	Ex.A-16:-	Statement of Duggappa
17	Ex.A-17:-	Legal Notice dated 07.10.2017
18	Ex.A-18:-	Postal Receipts and Acknowledgements
19	Ex.A-19:-	Letter of BESCOM dated 06.02.2012

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Report given by Kataiah
02	Ex-B-2:-	Letter dated 13.11.2017 by AEE, BESCOM, Chitradurga
03	Ex-B-3 & 4:-	Letter dated 27.10.2017 by AEE, BESCOM, Chitradurga with report
04	Ex.B-5:	Letter dated 27.10.2017 by AE, BESCOM, Chitradurga
05	Ex.B-6:-	KPTCL report

 

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**