O  R  D  E  R

(By Sri A. Radha Krishna, President on behalf of the Bench)

1.         The complainants 1 and 2 husband and wife sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of their foster son on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

2.         The allegations in the complaint in brief are that on 04.07.2011 at about 7.00 AM of Peethala Surendra was sitting on the parapet wall on the terraces of the complainant’s house and he raised his hand and accidentally touched the high tension electrical wires passing just behind the parapet wall and in the said process sustained electric shock. On noticing the same their son Peetala Prasad went to the rescue of Surendra, in that process he touched said Surendra and also sustained electrical shock.  Then the 1^st complainant by using the leg of cot separated them and immediately after the incident they called 108 Ambulance and Doctors in the said Ambulance declared Peethala Prasad dead and Surendra was admitted in the hospital.

3          Basing on the statement of the said Surendra Port Town Police Station, Kakinada registered the case Crime No. 75/2011 under Section 174CRPC.  After inquest and postmortem the dead body was handed over to the complainants.

4          It is the case of the complainants that it is an account of dereliction of duties and also deficiency of service on the part of employees of the opposite parties the incident occurred.  According to them the deceased who was aged 19 years was earning Rs. 300 as laborer in a Nickel Oil Factory and he was contributing the earnings to the complainants.  Thus they sought compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- from the opposite parties.

5.         Resisting the clam of the complainants the 4^th opposite party filed verified counter adopted by other opposite parties denying the material allegations in the complaint and further according to them the electrical lines were laid as per the terms and conditions of supply and also as per A.P. Transmission Rules.  As the high transmission lines will be laid by A.P. Transmission Corporation, the complaint against them is not maintainable.  It is also their case it is the civil suit only maintainable and the complaint before this Forum is not maintainable.  It is also their version the complainants are not entitled for any compensation as they are not the legal heirs of P. Prasad.  According to them it is only due to the negligence of the deceased and Surendra the Act occurred.  Thus contending they sought dismissal of the complaint. 

6          Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the complaint is bad for non joinder of the necessary parties?
2. Whether the complainants are entitled for compensation as legal heirs of the deceased?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. If so, whether the complainants are entitled for compensation sought by them?

7. Point No.1:           The foremost objection of the opposite parties is that the High tension transmission lines will be laid by A.P. Transmission Corporation and they have nothing to do with laying of high tension wires.  The high tension wires are laid as per the terms and conditions of the supply and also as per the A.P. Transmission Rules.  On the face of this plea taken by opposite parties who are Chairman and Managing Director, APEPDCL, Visakhapatnam, Superintendent Engineer [Operations], A.P.E.P.D.C.L. Rajahmundry, Divisional Engineer [Operations], A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Kakinada and The Asst. Engineer [Operations], Section Office, APEPDCL, Kakinada the complainants have not taken any steps for adding the necessary parties who are the officials A.P. Transmission Corporation to sustain their complaint.  Inspite of specific plea taken by the opposite parties that complainant is not maintainable against them the complainants could not produce any material showing that the complaint against the opposite parties is maintainable inspite of the specific objection raised by the opposite parties.  Hence under these circumstances the complaint is to be treated as bad for non joinder of necessary parties who are the officials of A.P. Transmission Corporation. Thus this point is answered against the complainants.

8. Point No.2:           Another objection raised by the opposite parties is that the complainants are not entitled for any compensation as they are not legal heirs of the deceased Peethala Prasad.  As seen from the allegations in the Complaint, the complainants described themselves as foster parents of the deceased.  There is certain distinction between adopted parents and foster parents.  The adopted parents exercise all legal rights as that of the natural parents where as the foster parents can’t exercise any such right.  That apart there is no allegation in the complaint that the complainants are dependents on the income of the deceased.  Even there is no  evidence with regard to the earnings of the deceased.  Hence under these circumstances as the complainants are not adopted parents or natural parents they are not entitled to seek any compensation on the ground that they are the foster parents of the deceased.  Hence this point is answered accordingly.

9. Point No.3:           To show the deficiency of service the chief affidavit of 1^st complainant is filed and marked 5 documents which are Xerox copies of FIR, Inquest report, postmortem report, proceedings of Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kakinada and office copy of lawyer’s notice.

10        Here it may be noted that under points 1 and 2 this Forum held that the complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and also the complainants are not entitled for compensation as they are not legal heirs of the deceased.  In view of the findings rendered under point No.1 and 2 and also the Police closes the crime No. 75/11 by dropping the action it is manifest no negligence can be inferreds on the part of the Department people.  Further more when the complaint is bad for non joinder and also the complainants are not legal heirs they can’t be claim for any deficiency service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence this point is answered against the complainants in favour of the opposite parties.

11  Point No.2:          In view of the finding rendered under point Nos.1 to 3, the complainants are not entitled for any compensation.  Hence this point is answered accordingly.

12.       In the result, the complaint is dismissed in the circumstances without costs.

Dictation taken by the Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us, in open Forum, this the 18^th day of March, 2015.

Sd/-xxxxxx                                                                                                           Sd/-xxxxxxx

MEMBER                                                                                                               PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainants: 

PW1:              Sri Vaddi Balayya [1^st complainant]

For opposite parties:         NIL

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainants:-

Ex.A1                          First Information Report

Ex.A2                          Inquest report,

Ex.A3                          Postmortem report,

Ex.A4                          Proceedings of Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kakinada

Ex.A5                          Office copy of lawyer’s notice issued to opposite parties.

For opposite parties:-                   Nil

Sd/-xxxxxxxx                                                                                                       Sd/-xxxxxxxx

MEMBER                                                                                                               PRESIDENT