BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
C.C. No. 9/2008
Between:
1) Mohd. Noorullah Shareef
S/o. Mohd. Ibrahim Shareef
Age: 55 years,
2) Smt. Fatima Bee
W/o. Mohd. Noorullah Shareef
Age: 50 years
3) Kum. Aaashifa
D/o. Mohd. Noorullah Shareef
Age : 22 years
4) Mohd. Kaleemullah
S/o. Mohd. Noorullah Shareef
Age: 19 years
Minor Rep. by complainant No. 1.
5) Khadeerullah
S/o. Mohd. Noorullah Shareef
Age: 15 years
Minor Rep. by complainant No. 1.
R/o. 12-1-990/1/1,
North Lalaguda, Secunderabad. *** Complainants
And
1) The Managing Director-cum-Chairman
A.P. TRANSCO
Vidyuth Soudha
Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
2) The Principal Secretary to Govt. of A.P.
For Energy & Power,
Secretariat, Hyderabad.
3) The Chief Engineer
Department of Electricity
A.P. Vidhyut Soudha
Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
4) The Divisional Engineer (Electric Dept)
Opp. Paradise Hotel
Paradise, Secunderabad.
5) The Asst. Divisional Engineer
North Circle, Opp. Suresh Theatre
Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad.
6) The Asst. Engineer
Electric Department, North Circle
Padmaraongar,Opp. Suresh Theatre
Seethaphalmandi, Secunderabad.
7) The Asst. Addl. Engineer
Electric Department, North Circle
Lalaguda, Opp. Chaitanya Jr. College
Tarnaka, Secunderabad.
(Opposite Parties 2, 3, 6 & 7
are not necessary parties) *** Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant: M/s. G. Guru Murthy
Counsel for the OPs: M/s. A. Jaya Raju
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI K. SATYANAND, MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
***
1) This is a complaint filed to recover Rs. 99 lakhs together with interest and costs on the death of the deceased Mohd. Habeebullah Shareef in an electrocution.
2) The case of the complainants in brief is that the deceased Mohd. Habeebullah Shareef (herein after called the ‘deceased’) is the son of complainant Nos. 1 & 2 and brother of complainant Nos 3 to 5. The deceased was an electronic engineer having studied B.Tech in Electronics & Communications. On 22. 6. 2007 at about 11.00 p.m. the electricity was stopped and the inmates of the locality was informed by the opposite parties. However, they did not restore it. . On 23.12.2006 the deceased and his younger brother Mohd. Kaleemullah while returning home after performing Namaz at about 5.00 a.m. by the time they came near H.No. 12-1-990/A the deceased electrocuted from live wire hanging from electric pole. Immediately they took him to Gandhi Hospital where he was declared dead. The first complainant immediately gave report to the police which in turn registered it
as a case in crime No. 117/2007 alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Inquest and post mortem were also conducted. The doctors of Gandhi Hospital declared that the death was due to electrocution. When the police did not take any action, first complainant filed a complaint u/s 200 Cr.P.C. for the offences u/s 304A IPC against the opposite parties before the X AMM, Secunderabad which was referred to the police and the same was registered as Crime No. 7/2008. The colleagues of the deceased were getting Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month. They lost an earning member. They had spent huge amount for getting the deceased educated. They have to perform the marriages of complainants 3 to 5. Therefore they claimed Rs. 90 lakhs towards compensation together with interest and costs.
3) The opposite parties (APTRANSCO) resisted the case. They denied each and every allegation made in the complaint. It specifically denied that there was power cut on 22.6.2007 at 11.00 p.m. It had received a complaint only on 23.6.2007 at about 5.40 a.m. with regard to snapping of an L.T. line. There was very heavy gale and wind on 22.6.2007, due to which trees fell on L.T. line resulting line snapping. At the place where the incident took place, there was only single phase line. There were 10 service connections connected to the pole which were supported by G.I. wire. The lines were properly maintained and there was no negligence on their part. The death of the deceased was due to his negligence. When the complainants could not attribute any negligence on them, this Commission has no jurisdiction. At any rate, the matter could not be resolved under summary procedure. The complainants did not file the investigation report made by the police. The allegation that they spent Rs. 5 lakhs towards his education is false. At any rate the compensation claimed is highly excessive and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainants in proof of their case examined the first complainant as PW1, Mohd Nayeem, an inquestadar as PW2, Maqbool an employee in the mosque as PW3; Abdul Irfan the person who took the deceased to the hospital as PW4; and Mohd. Ishaq a resident of the locality as PW5 and got Exs. A1 to A14 marked, while the opposite parties filed the affidavit evidence of Sri Bramhanandam, ADE/OP, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad and got Exs. B1 to B4 marked.
5) The points that arise for consideration are :
i) Whether there was any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties which contributed the death of the
deceased?
ii) Whether the complainants are entitled to any compensation? If so to what amount?
iii) To what relief?
6) It is the case of the complainants that the deceased while returning home from Namaz along with his brother at about 5.00 a.m. on 23. 6.2007 had come into contact with a live snapped electric live wire on the road, due to which he was electrocuted and died on spot. PWs 3 to 5 in one voice stated that the deceased died of electrocution. The first complainant immediately gave a report to the police evidenced under Ex. A2, basing on which the police registered a case in Crime No. 117/2007 u/s 174 Cr.P.C. Inquest was conducted on the body of the deceased and inquestadars was of the opinion that the deceased died of electrocution as he had come into contact with snapped live wire while returning home from Namaz vide inquest report Ex. A3. The Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Secunderabad conducted the post-mortem examination. He was of the opinion that the deceased died due to electric shock vide Ex. A4 report. The complainants also relied on newspaper reports marked as Ex. A5. When the police did not take any action, father of the deceased filed a private compliant before the X AMM, Secunderabad, which in turn was referred u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. to register and investigate the matter. The opposite parties which had to maintain and oversee the maintenance and supply of lines did not deny the incident as such. In a way it had admitted by stating that “ there was a heavy gale and wind on 22.6.2007 and line snapping was happened due to falling of a tree branch on L.T. line and in fact the opposite parties had not received any complaint with regard to line snapping on 22.6.2007 night. It reiterated once again stating that “ snapping of line occurred due to heavy gale and wind beyond the control of human beings and it is a natural calamity and there was no negligence on the part of opposite parties.”
7) When the APTRANSCO itself knew that there was heavy gale and wind it could have foreseen that there would be line snapping and possibility of people coming into contact with it. It should have stopped the supply of electricity. The Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar reported in 2002 (2) ALD 4 (SC) taking cognizance of these cases of electrocution opined::
“It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into if the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous 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 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 thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.”
It was further observed:
“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 case 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 concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable hard 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.”
8) The APTRANSCO did not discharge its liability by leading any evidence on the other hand it shows that it did not take any steps to contain the risk when such foreseeable hazards would occur. The transmission of energy when there was heavy gale and wind it would endanger the lives in case of any eventuality like snapping of wires etc.., would itself show that there was negligence on its part amounting to deficiency in service. The APTRANSCO having undertaken the supply of electricity, a high degree of care was expected of it since it ought to have appreciated the possibility of such eventuality.
9) In fact the Privy Counsel has observed in Quebec Railway, Light Heat and Power Company Ltd. Vs. Vandry & Others AIR 1920 PC 181 “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.”
10) In the light of authoritative pronouncements, we are of the opinion that APTRANSCO is guilty of deficiency of service and liable to compensate for the death of the deceased.
11) Though the complainants had filed the complaint against seven of the officers of the APTRANSCO later they had not pressed against opposite parties 2, 3, 6 and 7, however case was continued against opposite parties 4 & 5 viz., the Divisional Engineer and the Assistant Divisional Engineer. There is no pleading or proof that opposite parties 4 & 5 are personally liable. Unless there is a specific pleading, we may not hold them guilty or hold that their acts amounts to deficiency in service and therefore liable. Since opposite party No. 1 adequately represents the APTRANSCO, we are of the opinion that opposite party No. 1 is liable to compensate . Therefore this point is held in favour of the complainants.
12) The deceased was born on 12.4.1986 evidenced under SSC certificate and passed in second division in B.Tech (Electronics & Communication Engineering) in April, 2007 evidenced by provisional certificate issued by JNTU, Hyderabad. Obviously, he was not employed. It might be that he could have been selected as an Electronics Engineer. The complainants in order to prove that the deceased would have gainfully employed and could get about Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 40,000/- per month towards salary obtained a certificate Ex. A14 from Paulus Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Ameerpet, Hyderabad wherein it was mentioned that “if he had been given employment with the company he could have drawn salary, emoluments of Rs. 25,000/- -plus as they are paying the same to his contemporaries.”
13) Learned counsel for the complainants filed a calculation memo stating that he spent about Rs. 5 lakhs towards his education. He could have survived up till 60 years and had he been employed he could have got Rs. 11,17,47,786/- by taking 10% increment per annum. He arrived at Rs. 3,24,73,715/- by applying the multiplier ‘39’ and after deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses on the said amount. Alternatively he calculated the annual income at Rs. 3,00,000/- x 17 invoking Second Schedule of Section 163(A) of the M.V. Act., and arrived at Rs. 51,00,000/-, and deducted 1/3rd there of towards his personal expense and claimed an amount of Rs. 34,00,000/-.
14) We may state that the deceased was a bachelor at the time of his death. In case of death of a bachelor, since his contribution would endure till the life time of parents the multiplier that could be adopted in this case would be average age of his parents the multiplier would come to 11.
15) The evidence discloses that he was not employed as yet and however he passed Electronics & Communications Engineering in second division. Obviously, he being an engineering graduate he would have got at least a reasonable salary of Rs. 20,000/- per month supported by certificate Ex. A14 though not Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- as mentioned. With regard to computation of compensation the multiplier adopted under M.V. Act can be invoked as it is evolved on scientific basis. If the same yard stick is applied in case of death as in cases arising under the M.V. Act. In case the age of the mother is taken at 50 years, and father at 55 years the appropriate multiplier would be 11. We reiterate, on the date of accident, he was not earning any amount. It cannot be said with certainty that he would earn about Rs. 25,000/- per month unlike any of his colleagues. He is only a second class
engineering graduate. An any rate an amount of Rs. 20,000/- per month could be said to be reasonable and modest. If an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/-
is taken as his annual income if 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal expenses it would come to Rs. 1,60,000/- and if the multiplier ‘11’ is applied it would come to Rs. 17,60,000/-, and an amount of Rs. 40,000/- is added towards loss of estate and love and affection, it would come to Rs. 18 lakhs, which we feel reasonable and modest.
16) In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the APTRANSCO opposite party No. 1 to pay Rs. 18 lakhs together with interest @ 7% p.a., from the date of complaint i.e., 12.2.2008 till the date of realization together with costs computed at Rs. 5,000/-. Out of said compensation, second complainant mother is entitled to Rs. 8 lakhs, while the first complainant father is entitled to Rs. 4 lakhs and remaining complainants 3 to 5 are entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs each. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
COMPLAINANTS: OPPOSITE PARTIES
None None
Documents marked for complainants:
Ex.A-1 Photographs of the Area at North Lalaguda, Secunderabad.
Ex.A-2 Copy of FIR No.117/2007 along with complaint dt.23.6.2007.
Ex.A-3 Copy of inquest report in Cr.No.117/2007 on the dead body of Mohd.Habeebullah Shareef dt.23.6.2007.
Ex.A-4 Copy of P.M report of deceased dt.23.6.2007.
Ex.A-5 Copies of Paper Publications with regard to the death of Mohd.Habeebullah Shareef.
Ex.A-6 Copy of FIR in Cr.No.7/2008 of P.S.Lalaguda dt.7.1.2008.
Ex.A-7 Copies of Certificates relating to the deceased
Mohd.Habeebullah Shareef.
Ex.A-8 Copies of bonafide certificates pertaining to the deceased
Mohd.Habeebullah Shareef.
Ex.A-9 Copy of electric bill pertaining to complainants.
Ex.A-10 Copy of representation given to the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh dt.21.10.2007.
Ex.A-11 Copy of letter addressed by Chief Minister of A.P to the District Collector, Hyderabad and to the first complainant.
Ex.A-12 Copy of Cheque for Rs.50,000/- dt.25.6.2007.
Ex.A-13 Legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite parties with postal receipts.
Ex.A-14 Certificate issued by Paulus Software Technologies Pvt. Ltd.,
Documents marked for Opposite Parties :
Ex.B-1 Copy of FIR No.117/2007 dt.23.6.2007 of P.S Lalaguda, Hyderabad.
Ex.B-2 Copy of FIR.No.7/2008 dt.11.1.2008 of P.S Lalaguda, Hyderabad.
Ex.B-3 Fuse call complaint copy dt.22.6.2007.
Ex.B-4 Ex-gratia payment dt.25.6.2007 for Rs.50,000/-.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
3) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 23. 02. 2010.
*pnr
“UP LOAD – O.K.”
