<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 11th DECEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1917/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANTS 1. Smt.Manjula Bai,W/o late G.Srinivas @ Srinivasa Rao,Aged about 31 years.2. Master Mithun,S/o Late G.G.Srinivas @ Srinivasa Rao,Aged about 10 years.3. Smt.Revoo Bai,W/o Late Gangoji Rao,Aged about 65 years.Complainant No.2 since minor is represented by his mother complainant No.1.All are R/at No.7,“Sri Muneshwaraswamy Nilaya”Doddagollarahatti,Pipeline Road, Magadi Main Road,Bangalore – 56 00 91.Advocate – Sri.T.ParameshwarappaV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Department of Telecommunications,Government of India,Bangalore Telecom District (B.S.N.L)Platform Road, Sheshadripuram,Bangalore.Represented by its Accounts Officer, TR-(N).2.The Manager,B.S.N.L Telephone Exchange,Anjananagara,Bangalore – 56 00.3. Hanumantharayappa,S/o not known to the complainant,B.S.N.L Lineman,B.S.N.L Telephone Exchange,Anjananagara,Bangalore – 56 00.Advocate – Sri.K.Prakash Rao<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant No.1 is the wife of one G.Srinivasa Rao, complainant no.2 is the son, complainant No.3 is the mother of G.Srinivasa Rao. According to the complainant her husband Srinivasa Rao died due to electrocution. It is all because of the deficiency in service on the part of OP. G.Srinivasa Rao availed the services of the OP for shifting of his telephone No.23288531 from his rented house to own house on 19.07.2007. OP.3 was deputed for the said job. He came to said new house at 5.00 pm and started shifting the telephone wire. He asked Srinivasa Rao to come on the 3rd floor of the said house to catch the telephone wire, which he is going to throw from the road. OP.3 having stood in front of the said house threw the cable wire towards the terrace. Srinivasa Rao who caught it started pulling it. In the mean time it entangled with the high-tension electric wire passing through in front of the said house and due to electrocution he sustained the severe injuries and later on succumbed to the said injuries. Death of Srinivasa Rao occurred due to the carelessness and negligence of the OP. Under the circumstances they are advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP on 19.07.2007 they received the complaint with respect to the fault with the said land line No.23288531. They deputed OP.3 he went to the spot. On examination he did not notice any defect or fault with the said telephone and he returned back to office by about 4.00 pm. The allegations of the complainants that Srinivasa Rao has sought for shifting of the phone from rented house to his own house is false. No such application is received by the OP. The other allegations of the complainants that OP.3 threw the telephone wire from the road to the terrace of the said new building and when deceased caught it he was electrocuted is all false and hypothetical. There is no deficiency in service, much less carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP. In order to shift the telephone from one premises to another OP is governed by certain rules and procedures. Deceased without applying for shifting the said phone according to the rules must have on his own made some arrangement to shift it unauthorizely. For that OP can’t be blamed. If at all complainants filed a complaint against OP.3 it is for the OP.3 to face the said trial. The other allegations are baseless. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence of three witnesses and produced the documents. Interrogatories served they are answered. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that one Srinivasa Rao the husband of complainant no.1, father of complaint no.2, son of complainant no.3 is a customer with respect to the land line no.23288531. OP provided the service. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that as per the request made by the Srinivasa Rao for shifting of the phone from one old house to their new house, OP.1 & 2 deputed OP.3 on 19.07.2007 and OP.3 came to the premises at 5.00 pm and started shifting the said telephone. In the mean time OP.3 took the cable wire stood on the road in front of the said new house and threw it to the terrace of the new building. Wherein G.Srinivasa Rao was standing and OP.3 asked G.Srinivasa Rao to pull it tightly. In the mean time the said telephone wire got entangled with the high-tension electrical wire and Srinivasa Rao was electrocuted. Due to which he sustained the severe burns later on succumbed to the said injuries. According to the complainants it is all because of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP’s this fatal incident occurred.<br /> <br /> 7. OP have taken specific defence that in order to shift certain telephone they have to follow the procedure, rules and regulations. Strictly speaking they not at all received any written application for shifting of the telephone as contended by the complainant. According to OP on 19.07.2007 deceased lodged the complaint with regard to the fault in the landline. OP.1 and 2 deputed OP.3, he attended to the said telephone and found that there is no fault and returned back to the office by 4.00 pm. To support this defence docket history is produced.<br /> <br /> 8. Though complainant has produced some other documents like R.C book, income certificate and police complaint, FIR, PM report, death certificate etc. No piece of document is produced with respect to the lodging of an application to shift the telephone. Under such circumstances any amount of other evidence produced by the complainant will not come to their aid and help. The answer given to the interrogatories by complainant which are served by the OP speaks to the fact that for the first time OP.3 went to the said spot at 5.45 pm on that day. If that is so, if the FIR, charge sheet and other allegations made by the complainant is to be believed that this fatal incident has taken place at 5.00 pm then the very presence of OP.3 at that spot at that time is highly doubtful. In all probability the deceased must have thought to shift the said telephone on his own making some private arrangements. The officials of OP.1 & 2 have sworn to the fact that no such telephone cable wire has been supplied by Department, nor they deputed OP.3 for shifting the said telephone.<br /> <br /> 9. Even if it is held for a while that on the basis of the police complaint, FIR and charge sheet there is some allegation of negligence on the part of the OP.3 as the case is already registered against OP.3 he will face the trial for the said offence punishable sec.304 A of IPC. In our view that is nothing to do with the deficiency in service. Practically speaking neither the complainants nor the deceased have ever availed the services of the OP as per the rules, regulations and law prescribed for shifting of the telephone as contemplated.<br /> <br /> 10. When there is no proof of availment of service the question of deficiency in service rather does not arise. OP has produced the sketch pertaining to the existence of the building and the spot where high-tension electrical wire runs. There is a distance of 30 feet in between the two. Under such circumstances it is rather practically impossible to throw a cable wire from road to the terrace of the second floor that is to the height of more than 40 feet or so and it having touched the high tension wire which is situated 30 feet away from the said house. <br /> <br /> 11. We have gone through the documents produced by the complainants as well as the OP and the answers given to the interrogatories, we are of the view that there is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under such circumstances complainants are not entitled for relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 11th day of December 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />