This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K.Venu Gopal, Advocate for the complainant and Sri P.Venu Gopal Rao, Advocate for opposite parties and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

O   R   D   E   R

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the relief to direct the O.Ps. to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation with interest @ 12%p.a., for the death of Gowri and to pay costs on the following averments.

          On 22-6-2013 at about 7.30 hours the deceased Gowri while proceeding towards sugarcane field in their village she came in contact with live electrical wire which was cut and fallen on the ground upon which she sustained electrical shock and burn injuries and died on the spot.  Immediately, after the accident she was taken to Community Health Centre, Badangi where the doctors examined and declared that she deceased died.  In the hospital post mortem was conducted over dead body of the deceased and the dead body was handed over to the complainants for cremation.

          The S.H.O., Badangi Police having received report registered the same as case in Crime No.30/13 U/s 174 Cr.P.C.   The deceased was aged about 30 years and was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.200/- per day and due to her sudden demise the complainants being her Lrs are deprived of her love and affection and support.  The above said accident was occurred due to the gross negligence and dereliction in duties of the men of O.Ps. and as there is deficiency of service on their part the complainants have filed the complaint for the above said relief.

          The 3^rd O.P. filed counter and the same was adopted by O.P.1 and 2 by filing a memo.  In the counter the O.Ps. have traversed the material allegations made in the complaint and have averred that the men of O.Ps. were not negligent or dereliction in duties and as such the complaint is bad in law.  It is averred that the complainants are not consumers and the complaint case does not come within the purview of C.P.Act and as the complainants did not issue the statutory notice to the concerned electrical inspector before filing the case, the same is bad in law.   It is averred that there are no bonafides in the complaint and as such the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.

In support of complainant’s case the complainants have filed the evidence affidavit of P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A.1 to A.6 and on behalf of O.Ps. they have filed the evidence affidavit of R.W.1.

          Now the point for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs prayed for ?

Basing on the evidence available on record the learned counsel for complainants have contended that the men of O.Ps. were negligent and dereliction in duties in restoring the cut live electrical wire at the place of incident and as the deceased came in contact with the said electrical wire she was electrocuted and died on the spot and as such the O.Ps. are liable to pay compensation to the complainants.  As against the above said contention the learned advocate for O.Ps. have contended that the men of O.Ps. were not negligent and dereliction in duties and were not the cause for the accident and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

In the evidence affidavit of P.W.1 he has reiterated the allegations made in the complaint.  To support the said oral testimony the complainants have filed a copy of FIR, Inquest Report, Post Mortem Report, Lawyer’s Notice, Paper cutting, Photographs and got the same marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6.  As seen from Ex.A.1 immediately after incident a report was filed with police who registered the same as case in Crime No.30/13.  As seen from Ex.A.2 inquest report it is clear that the police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and as seen from its contents the deceased died in the fields as she came in contact with live electrical wire.  The contents of Ex.A.3 post mortem report clearly reveals that the deceased died due to Cardio Respiratory Arrest due to electrical shock.  Ex.A.4 is the copy of notice got issued by the complainants to O.Ps. and in the said notice they have clearly stated that while the deceased was proceeding in the fields she came in contact with high tension electrical live wire which was cut and lying on the ground.  Ex.A.6 is the photographs and as seen from the same it is manifest that the deceased died in the fields as she came in contact with live electrical wire.

Though the O.Ps. have filed the counter they did not specifically deny the happening of the above said incident.  The contents of counter are evasive in nature.  As the O.Ps. did not deny the happening of the incident and did not specifically plead as to how the men of O.Ps. were not negligent and dereliction in their duties much reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of R.W.1 to believe their case.  As seen from the oral testimony of P.W.1 coupled with contents of Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 it is clear that on the fateful day of incident while the deceased was proceeding towards the sugar cane fields, she came in contact with live electrical wire which was lying on the ground and died on the spot.  When the live electrical wire was cut and fallen on the ground for any reason whatsoever the supply of electric current would be disrupted.  Then it is an indication to the men of O.Ps. to immediately act upon and to restore current.  If they fail to act upon forthwith it amounts to dereliction in their duties.    When the live electrical wire is lying on the ground even for a little time it would cause damage to the men and cattle who unnoticingly comes in contact with such electrical wire.  Hence a duty is cast upon the O.Ps. or their men to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.  Coming to case on hand the men of O.Ps. did not act positively and efficiently to restore the live electrical wire to its normal position to prevent damage to men and cattle.

In a decision in AJMER VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD., Vs. PARTHU & ANR., I (2013) CPJ 159

Wherein it is held:-  Supplier of electricity is under statutory obligation to maintain all of its lines and equipments, etc., in such condition so as to ensure that no one comes into direct contact of such lines or equipments resulting into mishap.

          In a decision in AIR 1920 PC 181 QUEBEC RAILWAY, LIGHT HEAT AND POWER COMPANY LTD., Vs. VANDRY & OTHERS  “that the company supplying the electricity is liable for the damage without proof that they had been negligent even the defence that the cables were disrupted on account of violent wind and high tension current found its way through the low tension cable into the premises of the respondents was held to be not a justifiable defence.  Thus, merely because the illegal act could be attributed to a stranger is not enough to absolve the liability of the Board regarding the live wire lying on the road”.

In a decision reported :-  The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case between Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Versus Shail Kumar and others (2002 (2) ALD 4 (SC) as reported in Supreme Court full reports in C.A.No.180 of 2002 decided on the 11^th day of January, 2002 it was observed and held in Para 7 and 8:

PARA 7:-     It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the board and if the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into, the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the suppliers of the electric energy.  Further observation is that so long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangers 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.  It is no defence on the part of the management of the board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning of such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line.  It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices.  At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road, the electric current there on should automatically have been disrupted.  Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.

PARA 8:-  Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risk exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings.  The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity.  The liability  cast on such person is known in law as “strict liability “.  It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e., the concepts of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions.  If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed.  But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.

As seen from the principles laid down in the decisions cited supra a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risk exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injuries suffered by any other person irrespective of negligence or carelessness on the part of the Managers of such undertakings.  The complainants herein have succeeded in proving their case by placing both oral and documentary evidence.  Though the O.Ps. filed counter and contested the matter they did not specifically state as to how their men were not negligent and dereliction in their duties.  Hence in the above said facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that as the men of O.P’s. were in dereliction of their duties and as there is deficiency in service, they are liable to pay compensation to the complainants.

Now, the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get Rs.5 Lakhs for the demise of the deceased in the above said incident.

As per complainants the deceased was aged about 30 years and was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.200/- per day.  The complainants did not adduce any cogent evidence to prove the actual avocation and earnings of the deceased.  Since the deceased was aged about 30 years she must be doing some work to earn her bread.  The complainants and deceased were hailing from a village, where the nature of work is to do agricultural operations.  The agricultural work is seasonal and depends on monsoon and when it is favourable there is chance of getting work.  Hence, a person doing agricultural work is not expected to get work for all the days in a year.  Hence, in the above said facts and circumstances we deem it fit to accept the annual income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/- and out of the same a 1/3^rd which comes to Rs.10,000/- can straight away be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased.   The balance of Rs.20,000/- can be taken as annual loss of dependency.  As per complainants the 1^st complainant is the husband and complainants 2 and 3 are the children and complainants 4 and 5 are the parents of the deceased.  The age of 1^st complainant is shown to be 40 years hence the appropriate multiplier is fixed at 15.  The above annual loss of dependency if multiplied by the use of appropriate multiplier 15 fixed supra the compensation under the head loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,00,000/-.  The same is accordingly awarded as compensation to the petitioners under the head loss of dependency.

In the result, the petition is allowed in part awarding a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) to the petitioners with interest at 7 ½ % p.a., simple from the date of accident till the date of realization recoverable by the petitioners from the respondents jointly and severally.   Out of the amount awarded the petitioners 1 to 5 are each entitled to get Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only).  The amount awarded to petitioners 2 and 3 shall be deposited in a nationalized bank till they attain majority.  The 1^st petitioner is entitled to get quarterly interest accrued on the deposits of petitioners 2 and 3 and to spend the same for their education and welfare.  The O.Ps. are directed to comply the order within one month from this day.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 16^th day of May, 2014.

Member                                                           President   

CC. 59 of 2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

     For P.W.1                                                                  For R.W.1

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For complainant:-

1. Ex.A.1 FIR report dt.22-6-2013 (Xerox copy)
2. Ex.A.2 Inquest report dt.22-6-2013  (Xerox copy)
3. Ex.A.3 Post Mortem Report (Xerox copy)
4. Ex.A.4 Regd.Lawyer Notice
5. Ex.A.5 Paper cutting (Xerox copy)
6. Ex.A.6 Photographs

For O.P:  NIL

                                                                                                President.