Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/50/2017

Shivamurthy S/o Bommashankara, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Executive Engineer, BEscom, - Opp.Party(s)

S. Venkatesh,

04 Apr 2018

ORDER

 

COMPLAINT FILED ON:26/05/2017

DISPOSED      ON:04/04/2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

 

C.C.NO: 50/2017

 

DATED: 4^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. Shivamurthy S/o Bommashankara, Age: 44 Years, Mason Work.   2. Manjamma W/o Shivamurthy, Age 40 Years,   Both are residing at Bhovi Colony, Mubaraq Mohalla, Molakalmuru Taluk Chitradurga District.   (Reptd. By Sri. S. Venkatesh, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Behind DC Office, Chitradurga.   2. The Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Molalkalmuru Town, Chitradurga District.   3. The Mechanic Grade-2, BESCOM, Molkalmuru Town.   4. The Chief Officer, Pattan Panchayath, Molkalmuru.   (Reptd. By Sri. C.S. Kireeti Shetty, Advocate for OP No.1 to 3 and Sri. K.M. Nagaraja, Advocate for OP No.4)

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.10,00,000/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 12% p.a and such other reliefs.  

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant is that, on 01.06.2015 at about 1-00 PM, near Pump House at Bhovi Colony in Molakalmuru Town one Kiran S/o Shivamurthy, aged about 15 years was studying in 9^th standard was playing marbles along with friend Chandrashekar.  By that time, the said Kiran went for bringing marble near electric pole and suddenly came in contact with the electric live wire which was connected to a street light.  Immediately, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Molkalmuru for treatment and he died in the said Hospital at 1-20 PM.  The said incident occurred due to the negligent act on the part of OPs in not properly quoted the rubber towards the live wire and not properly covered the selvages to the wires.  The OPs have not covered the wire coming from the switch board, the same is purely a negligence on the part of OPs, for which the said accident occurred.  On 31.07.2015, the Electrical Inspector of the OPs has given his report stating that, if the electric wire was properly, the said incident would not have occurred.  After that, a case was registered before the Molkalmuru P.S in Crime No.109/2015 and after filing the charge sheet, the case is registered as C.C.No.381/2016 for the offence punishable u/Sec.304(A) of IPC.  Due to the negligence of the OPs, the said incident occurred and future of the said boy was destroyed.  The complainant has spent nearly Rs.1,00,000/- for funeral and other expenses and complainants have suffered heavy loss, mental agony due to the death of their son at the early age.  After the death of their son, complainants have approached OPs claiming compensation.  The OPs have collected all necessary documents from the complainants but neglected to settle the claim, which is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  The cause action for this complaint arose on 01.06.2015 when the incident took place which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and prayed for allow the complaint.

3.      After service of notice, OP No.1 to 3 appeared through Sri. C.S. Kireeti Shetty, Advocate and filed version on behalf of OP No.2 only.  OP No.4 appeared through Sri. K.M. Nagaraja, Advocate and filed version. 

According to the version filed by OP No.2, the allegations made in para 1 to 3 and 6 to 8 are denied as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  Further taken a contention that, the BESCOM comes under the KPTCL and there is an agreement between OP No.2 and OP No.4 with regard to maintenance of the street light.  On 29.03.2010, OP No.2 and 4 have entered into an agreement that, the supplier shall not be liable to pay damage/compensation in connection with loss of life or property.  In this case, OP No.2 is the supplier.  In view of the agreement entered into with the OP No.4, the OP No.2 or its officials are not liable to pay any compensation.  OP No.4 is the Chief Officer, Pattana Panchayat, he is the maintainer of the entire street lights in the city, if there is any damage caused due to negligence on the part of OP No.4, it is held responsible and further stated that, complainants are not comes within Section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act and they are not the consumers and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint against OP No.2.

As per the version of OP No.4 that, the entire allegations made in the complaint are denied as false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  The duty of the OP No.4 is only to supply the bulbs and tubes.  OP No.1 to 3 are the responsible persons to maintain the entire wires and other materials.  Further OP No.4 stated that, it is not having any responsibility in maintaining the wires or other things.  Their duty is to supply of bulbs and tubes etc., and the BESCOM has to maintain the electric wires and poles.  It is further submitted that, the allegations made in the complaint that, the Pattana Panchayat is having the knowledge about the electric ground and has not taken any precautionary measures and due to the said negligence, the incident was happened is absolutely false.  Infact this OP is not having any skill or knowledge about the same and the maintenance of electrical poles and other things will not come within the jurisdiction of OP No.4 and the remaining allegations made in the complaint are denied as false and there is no deficiency 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-17 were got marked and closed their side.  On behalf of OPs, one Sri. Chikkanna, Assistant Executive Engineer has examined as DW-1 and Smt. Rukmini, the Chief Officer of OP No.4 has examined as DW-2 by filing their respective affidavits and no documents have been got marked 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, 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, on 01.06.2015 at about 1-00 PM, the minor son of complainants Kiran was playing marbles along with his friend Chandrashekar near Pump House, Bhovi Colony, Molakalmuru.  While playing he went near electric pole to bring marble, suddenly he came in contact with the electric live wire which was coming from the line to switch board.  Due to the said electrocution, the said Kiran fell down.  Immediately, the parents of the said boy took him to the Government Hospital, Molkalmuru for treatment.  By that time, the Doctors in the said Hospital told that, the said Kiran was died due to electric shock.  Here the main thing has to be decided by this Forum is that, whether the OP No.1 to 3 have properly maintained the electric live wire or not with rubber coating/sleeves properly.  The Advocate for the complainant has argued that, the OPs have not covered the electric wire with rubber coating/sleeves which was coming from the switch board and due to the said impact, the said Kiran died due to electrocution. 

OP No.1 to 3 have argued that, their duty is only to supply the power to the customers and the OP No.4 has to maintain the electric poles.  It is vehemently argued by the OP No.4 that, their duty is only to supply the bulbs and tubes and OP No.1 to 3 are the proper persons to maintain the electric wires and poles.  According to the OP No.4 the negligence is purely on the part of OP No.1 to 3 and they are held responsible to pay the compensation and further argued that, the Electrical Inspector of the BESCOM has submitted his report on 31.07.2015 stating that, “ J¯ï.n «zÀÄåvï PÀA§¢AzÀ ©Ã¢ ¢Ã¥ÀzÀ «ÄÃlgï ¨ÁPïìUÉ J¼É¢zÀÝ ¸À«ð¸ïªÉÊgï£À eÁ¬ÄAmï£ÀÄß ¸ÀÆPÀÛ jÃwAiÀÄ°è mÉÃ¥ï ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÉ/ªÉÊgÀ£ÀÄß §zÀ°¹zÀÝgÉ F C¥ÀWÁvÀ ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¸ÀÄwÛgÀ°®èªÉAzÀÄ C©ü¥Áæ¬Ä¸À¯ÁVzÉ”.  The document i.e., Ex.A-6 of the BESCOM itself supports the case of complainant showing that, the BESCOM has not covered the electric live wire with rubber coating/sleeves.  The Doctor has given his opinion in Ex.A-4 i.e., Post mortem report that “I am of the opinion that the cause of death is due to shock following cardiopulmonary arrest following electric shock”.  Ec.A-7 i.e., charge sheet shows that, one Kiran was died on 01.06.2015 when he came in contact with the electric wire which came from the switch board as the same was not covered properly by the rubber coating and by tape by the OP No.1 to 3, which shows the negligence and deficiency of service by them.       

10.   We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainants.  After going through the documents it clearly shows that, on 01.06.2015 the case was registered in Crime No.0109/2015 before the Molkalmuru Police and the said Police has registered the case against AEE, BESCOM, Molkalmuru and also while filing the charge sheet they have arrayed the OPs as the accused persons.  As per the documents available on record it is clearly shows that, the BESCOM Authorities have supplied electrical connection to the public in the Bhovi Colony, Molkalmuru and they were receiving the electric bills that means the OP No.1 to 3 with full knowledge that, they have given service to the public in the locality.   The OP No.1 to 3 have not produced any single document to disprove the case of the complainants.  That means OP No1 to 3 agrees that they have made deficiency in service in not covering the live wire which has coming from the switch board with rubber coating/sleeves.  Hence, the above said points clearly shows that the OP No.1 to 3 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.”

 

11.    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 OP No.1 to 3 are liable for payment of compensation to the complainant.   

12.    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 minor complainant was succumbed to the electrocution whose age was 14 years, he was a student and there will be no personal earnings to the minor complainant and on the basis of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we would like to take notional income for a non-earning member is Rs.50,000/- p.a and age of the injured is 14 years and as per Sarala Varma’s citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the multiplier will comes to 18.  Then the loss of love affection to the complainants from their son will be Rs.50,000 X 100% X 18 = Rs.9,00,000/-.  The complainants have not produced any document towards medical and travelling charges.  Even though if they have not produced bills or documents it is on safer side to award Rs.50,000/- towards medical and travelling charges including funeral expenses is to be ordered.  So, in all the complainant is entitled to get for the amount of Rs.9.50,000/- as mentioned below.”

 

Towards loss of love and affection	Rs.9,00,000-00
Towards medical, travelling and funeral expenses	Rs.   50,000-00
Total	Rs.9,50,000-00

 

 Hence, as discussed above in above paras, we come to the conclusion that, the complainants are entitled to get the compensation of Rs.9,50,000/- from OP No.1 to 3 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.  Accordingly, the complaint as against OP No.4 is liable to be dismissed.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 to 3.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.    

  13.     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 CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,50,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of incident till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and  Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

The complaint filed as against OP No.4 is hereby dismissed.  

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 04/04/2018 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. Chikkanna, AEE of OP No.2 by way of affidavit evidence.

 

DW-2: Sri. Smt. Rukmini, Chief Officer of OP No.4 by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	FIR
02	Ex-A-2:-	Complaint
03	Ex-A-3:-	Spot Mahazar
04	Ex.A-4:	P.M. Report
05	Ex.A-5:-	Dead Body Panchanama
06	Ex.A-6:-	Letter dated 31.07.2015 by electrical inspector
07	Ex.A-7:-	Charge sheet
08	Ex.A-8:-	Agreement
09	Ex.A-9:-	Legal notice dated 12.05.2017
10	Ex.A-10:-	Postal receipts
11	Ex.A-11:-	Postal acknowledgements
12	Ex.A-12:-	Returned postal cover with acknowledgement
13	Ex.A-13	Birth certificate
14	Ex.A-14:-	Electric bill
15	Ex.A-15:-	True copy of the photos
16	Ex.A-16:-	Spot panchanama
17	Ex.A-17:-	Genological Tree

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**