This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay ` 3,00,000 as compensation with 12% interest from the date of complaint till realization with cost.

The case of the complainants is that their mother Thambai was died due to electrocution who was a subscriber of 1^st opposite party and at the time of connecting the cable on 19.06.2007 at 7 am, she was died due to electrocution due to passing of electricity to the cable network which is caused due to the negligence of 1^st opposite party.  The 1^st opposite party is duty bound to maintain the cable net work free from any danger.  These type of danger can be avoided only by fixing qualitative stoppers in the cable junction and unfortunately the stopper fixed by 1^st opposite party near the house of the complainants are not free from complaint.  So the complainant’s mother sustained fatal accident and died of electrocution while she was connecting the pin of the cable to the T.V.  Post mortem report also reveal that the mother of the complainant died of electrocution.  The fatal accident was occurred only due to the negligence of the 1^st opposite party in maintaining the cable system properly.  The opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainants as they have lost their beloved mother and also compassion, love and motherly affection and care forever.  The deceased was a coolie and was earning `150 per day and was spending and bearing the house hold expenditures out of her income.   Fourth complainant is an unmarried boy and unemployed and was totally depend upon the deceased.  The deceased was having good health and was expected to live upto 85 years old as her father and mother lived upto to the age of 90 without any disease.  2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party is the insurer of the entire customers of 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party and hence both opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.  Though the loss of life of the mother of the complainants cannot be sufficiently compensated in terms of money, complainants claim `3,00,000.  The complainants issued a lawyer notice to the opposite parties, but eventhough they received the same, they either issued any reply nor paid the compensation.  Hence this complaint.

In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum all opposite parties appeared and filed their version. 1^st opposite party filed version admitting that he is a cable TV operator under the style of Maruvan Communications.  2^nd opposite party is the insurer of entire companies of the 1^st opposite party during the time of incident.  It is incorrect to say that incident was occurred due to the passing of electricity to the cable due to the negligence of 1^st opposite party. 1^st opposite party is conducting operation of cable TV with care and caution.  So 1^st opposite party has no liability to pay the amount.  If the Forum pleased to allow any amount, that may be realized from 2^nd opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

2^nd opposite party also filed version contending that the alleged accident and consequent electrocution was occurred due to the negligence of 3^rd and 4^th opposite party in periodical checking and overall maintenance of the electrical system in total in the house of the deceased.   The complaint is highly belated and hence not maintainable.  The alleged accident was occurred on 19.06.2007 at 7.30 am where as the lawyer notice was issued on 14.09.09 after 26 months.  The complaint is filed after elapsing of 33 months and the complainant should explain reason for each days delay.  So the complaint is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.  The insured had not intimated the alleged accident to the 2^nd opposite party and was kept in dark about the accident.  So the opposite party could not conduct investigation for survey to find out the truth and gather information about the alleged accident.  The opposite party was informed after 33 months which is gross violation of terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the insured.  So opposite party is not liable to indemnify the insured.  The deceased as well as the KSEB were equally responsible for the alleged accident if the KSEB had conducted proper periodical supervision of the electrical system, in the house of the deceased the accident would not have occurred.   Likewise if the deceased has shown little bit care while connecting the cable, the accident would not have occurred.  The customers are not supposed to connect or disconnect the cable connection.  The customers ought to have called the cable operators/technicians for connecting the cable to television to avoid electrocution.  So the deceased will also equally responsible for the unfortunate incident.  It is admits that 2^nd opposite party has issued a public liability policy in favour of Secretary, Cable TV Operators Association, Kannur District Committee and not as stated in the complaint.  So the opposite party is not liable to indemnify the complainant.  Hence to dismiss the complaint.

3^rd and 4^th opposite party also filed version contending that they are not a necessary party because there is no specific allegation, against the opposite parties.  The 3^rd opposite party was conducted a sight inspection on the basis of the news in the News Paper on 20.06.07 and prepared a site Mahassar.  No defect was found in the wiring of the house. Regulation 4 of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code 2005 states that the point of commencement of supply is the incoming terminal of the cutout installed by the consumer.  Regulation 20 D(a) of the KSEBoard Terms and conditions of Supply, 2005 states that the board does not accept responsibility with regard to the maintenance of testing of wiring on consumer’s promises.  As per the complaint complainant’s mother was died due to the electrocution when she was connecting the pin of the cable T.V.  The plug point where TV is connected comes after the cut out and hence the opposite parties No.3 and 4 are not  responsible for the accident.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of 3^rd opposite party and hence the 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties are to be exonerated.

5^th opposite party was also filed version contending that there is no allegation against the 5^th opposite party and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties.   The opposite party is not aware of accident and death of Thambai alleged with the complaint.  The 5^th opposite party is an association in which cable TV operators in Kannur District are members.  In order to protect its members opposite parties insured the subscribers under the member operators of the 5^th opposite party with 2^nd opposite party.  As such if any accident happens in any of the area of the operator members due to electrocution or otherwise connected with the cable TV connection all the said operators are to be indemnified by the 2^nd opposite party.  The deceased Thambai was a subscriber of 1^st opposite party who is the member of 5^th opposite party.  So any compensation entitled to the complainant on account of accidental death of Thambai will be paid by the 2^nd opposite party.  5fth opposite party is only an association of cable TV operators and hence has no liability to pay any compensation.  So the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for compensation.

1.     Whether the complaint is barred by limitation?

2.     Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

3.     Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?

4.     Relief and cost.

The evidence in the above case consists of oral testimony of PW1, PW2 and Ext.A1 to A11 and Ext.B1 to B2.

Issues No.1 to 4 :

          According to the complainants their mother Thambai was died due to electrocution while she was connecting the cable pin to TV was happened due to deficient service of 1^st opposite party, Opposite Party No.3 to 5 and 2^nd opposite party is the insurer and hence they are liable to indemnify the complainant.  But even after repeated request and lawyer notice 2^nd opposite party is not willing to indemnity the complainant.  In order to prove the case they have examined PW1 and PW2 and produced documents such as post mortem certificates, FIR, copy of lawyer notice, postal receipts, postal acknowledgments, power of Attorney and list of cable TV operators and Rent receipts, receipts issuing for renewal of policy and opposite parties also produced public liability non-industrial risk policy, copy of lawyer notice, certificate issued by cable TV operators Association and policy receipt etc.

          According to the complainant because of deficient service of 1^st opposite party and 5^th opposite party their mother was expired due to electrocution and 1^st opposite party is the member of 5^th opposite party’s association and 5^th opposite party is insured with 2^nd opposite party.  Admittedly the complainant’s mother expired due to electrocution on 19.06.07 and there exist a valid insurance having policy No.100803/40/06/37/00000336 from 10.10.06 to 09.10.07.  But the 2^nd opposite party contended that the complainants had informed the opposite party about the incident only on 14.09.09 through the lawyer notice.  Hence there is a long delay in informing the incident to the opposite party and hence they are not liable to give compensation.  The complainant also admitted that it was informed to the 2^nd opposite party through lawyer notice.  Admittedly the policy is in the name of Secretary, Cable TV operator’s association and the 1^st opposite party is the member of this association and policy holder is not the complainant.  Admittedly there is a valid policy in the name of the above said cable to operator’s association.  Since the policy is in the name of the third person there may caused some delay, but the facts and circumstances of the case shows that the claim is a genuine one which was arised out of death of the mother of the complainants.  Moreover 2^nd opposite party has not either allowed or repudiated the claim eventhough they have informed the same through the legal notice and 3 years also were elapsed.  So the complainants have the only way out to approach the Forum and hence we are of the opinion that the complaint is not barred by limitation and the 2^nd opposite party is liable to answer the claim put forward by the complainants.  As stated earlier there is valid insurance.  Ext.B1 is the brochure for public liability non-industrial risk policy per accident limit is `10,00,000.  So considering the natural justice and facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the accident was caused due to the negligence of 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party and 2<sup>nd</sup> opposite party is liable to indemnify him, and hence the complainants are entitled to `2,00,000 as compensation with `2,000 as cost of the proceedings and passed orders accordingly.  The other opposite parties No.1, 3  to 5 are exonerate from the liability.

          In the result the complaint is allowed directing the 2^nd opposite party to pay `2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as compensation with `2,000 (Rupees Two Thousand only)  as cost of the proceedings within 30 days of receipt of this order, otherwise complainant is entitled to execute the order as per the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.

          Dated this the 27^th day of August, 2012.

               Sd/-                   Sd/-                 Sd/-

          President             Member            Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1. Postmortem Certificate.

A2. Photocopy of FIR.

A3. Lawyer notice.

A4.  Postal receipt.

A5.  Postal receipt.

A6.  Acknowledgment card.

A7.  Acknowledgment card.

A8.  Power of Attorney.

A9.  Monthly receipt.

A10. Cable TV Operators Association member’s address list.

A11. Receipt dated 10.10.2006.         

Exhibits for the opposite parties

B1.  Insurance policy terms and conditions.

B2.  Lawyer notice dated 14.09.2009.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.  Complainant No.4

PW2.  Biju K.

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

                                                                        /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT