BEFORE THE A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
AT HYDERABAD.
C. C. 35/2009
Between:
Sunitha Kumari Dhanawat
D/o. Paresh Kumar Dhanawat
Age: 24 years, Lecturer,
R/o. Block No. 22, 314, 1st Floor,
Opp. Railway Station
Vasantha Vihar, Railway Station Road
Vizianagaram-2. *** Complainants
And
The Eastern Power Distribution Company
of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (EPDCL)
P&T Colony, Seethammadhara
Visakapatnam-530 013.
Rep. by its Chairman &
Managing Director *** Opposite Party
C. C. 36/2009
Between:
1) Smt. Savithri Devi Dhanawat
W/o. Paresh Kumar Dhanawat
Age: 44 years, House wife.
2) Paresh Kumar Dhanawat
S/o. Premraji Dhanawat
Age: 49 years, Unemployee
3) Ms. Suneeta Dhanawat
D/o. Paresh Kumar Dhanawat
Age: 24 years, Lecturer,
4) Ms. Sushma Dhanawat
D/o. Paresh Kumar Dhanawat
Age: 22 years, All are
R/o. Block No. 22, 314, 1st Floor,
Opp. Railway Station
Vasantha Vihar, Railway Station Road
Vizianagaram-2. *** Complainants
And
The Eastern Power Distribution Company
of Andhra Pradesh Ltd. (EPDCL)
P&T Colony, Seethammadhara
Visakapatnam-530 013.
Rep. by its Chairman &
Managing Director *** Opposite Party
Counsel for the complainants : M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the opposite Party: Smt. Jyothi Eswar G.
CORAM:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D. APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
MONDAY, THIS THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND ELEVEN
Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)
*****
1) These complaints are filed against the opposite party Eastern Power Distribution Company of Andhra Pradesh Ltd (EPDCL) for payment of compensation for electrocution.
2) Since common facts and law arise in both cases and arise in an accident caused for the family members, we are of the opinion that the same can be disposed of by a common order:
3) The case of the complainants in brief is that the complainant in C.C. 35/2009 is the 3rd complainant, 1st and 2nd complainants are her parents and 4th complainant is her sister. While so the municipal authorities while proposing to develop and widen the 60 feet road, made markings on the houses, and informed that demolition would be made up to the markings. While so on 13.7.2007 general public were informed that supply of electricity would be stopped during the road widening work on the said day. Service meters were removed and taken away. The power supply to their service connection bearing No. 982 was stopped. As such on 15.7.2007 in the morning she, and her brother Ajay Kumar with the help of one Mr. Zamir Khan went up-stairs to remove small display board situated in front portion of the shop room tied with ropes, and all of a sudden said rope fell on the electrical wires, and suddenly live electricity passed from the wires and flames came out. This was contrary to the announcement made by the board. While Mr. Zamir Khan died on spot and she and her brother were admitted in the hospital and her brother also died on the same day. She had sustained injuries over right hand, both legs, toes and other parts of the body. She was shifted to another hospital for better treatment. Skin grafting was done. She was discharged on 23.9.2007. Her half of right palm, two fingers, toes were removed. There is no movement or sense in the right and left legs, and equally in the right hand. She was unable to walk properly. She spent more than Rs. 3 lakhs. She lost her job and became disabled. On report the police registered a case in Crime No. 175/2007 u/s 174 IPC. All this was due to negligence of opposite party. Electrical wires were connected very nearer to the building. Had there been distance and care and caution has been taken this accident would not have occurred. At least they ought to have given proper notice. They removed the board under the impression that there was no power supply. She used to draw Rs. 12,000/- per month as salary. She was a gold medallist in post graduation (Chemistry). She has high prospects. She would earn Rs. 40,000/- per month. Now she has to depend on others. People have to assist her. Ajay Kumar Dhanwath son of first and second complainants and brother of third and fourth complainants died in the above incident vide Ex. A4 inquest report and Ex. A5 post-mortem examination certificate. For the notice issued the opposite party gave reply with false allegations. Restoration of power supply without any information would constitute deficiency in service, and therefore she claimed Rs. 50 lakhs towards compensation for loss of earnings, disability, Rs. 4 lakhs towards transportation and hospital expenses etc., and Rs. 1 lakh towards pain and suffering in all Rs. 55 lakhs. She along with her family claimed a compensation of Rs. 65,20,000/- together with costs of Rs. 5 lakhs in C.C. 36/2009.
4) The opposite party resisted the case. While putting the complainants to prove each and every allegation made it alleged that there was no negligence on its part. The police after investigation dropped further action on 31.10.2007 on the ground that they were not responsible for the said accident. It admitted that municipal authorities, Roads & Buildings (R&B) department had taken up the road widening work on 14.7.2007 and before commencement of the work the power supply was cut off to that area. At the end of day’s work, the municipal authorities, R&B department, police and electricity department had decided to restore the power supply to the entire buildings in the locality by 8.30 p.m. and the same was announced by the municipal and electricity authorities. Again they decided to take up the road widening work on 15.7.2007 from 10.00 a.m onwards till such time the power supply would be provided. Accordingly power supply was restored on 14.7.2007 to all the buildings in the locality including that of the complainant. No meters were removed from any of the premises. Notwithstanding the said announcement made by the municipal authorities in mikes and that the power supply was restored to the buildings, the complainant and her brother had negligently removed display board from the front portion of the shop situated on the second floor. The narration in the report to the police, and the manner in which the accident has taken place by her shows that it was due to their own negligence the said accident took place. The complainant was put to proof of various injuries and disability sustained by her and the amounts spent towards medical expenses etc. The complainants have not given the date of construction of the house nor the permission that has been given by the concerned local authority in order to find out whether the distance as required from the electrical pole was maintained or not. It is learnt that the complainant’s grand father had made constructions much after laying of the wires. It was his fault and the department could not be blamed for the same. The complainant could not state as to the provisions of the Electricity Supply Act that were not followed. The complainant and others ought to have taken necessary precautions at the time of lifting of display board and the accident was occurred due to negligence on their part. There was no necessity to lift the board before the prescribed time i.e., 10.00 a.m as announced by the department. More over erection and removal of display boards can only be made by skilled and semi-skilled workers, and the complainant and her brother cannot handle it. The dispute requires elaborate evidence and the same cannot be adjudicated in a summary fashion, and therefore this Commission had no jurisdiction. The claims are highly exaggerated. In order to avoid payment of court fee these complaints were filed. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
5) The complainants in proof of her case in C.C. 35/2009 filed her affidavit evidence besides that of neighbours PWs 1 to 5 and got Exs. A1 to A19 marked while the opposite party filed the affidavit evidence of its Superintendent Engineer, and did not choose to file any documents. The complainants in proof of their case in C.C. 36/2009 filed affidavit evidence of ___________filed affidavit evidence of __________complainant and got Exs. A1 to A10 marked.
6) The points that arise for consideration are :
i. Whether there was any negligence on the part of opposite party in failing to inform restoration of power supply on the date of incident?
ii. Whether the complainant has sustained disability and is entitled to compensation?
iii. Whether the complainants in C.C. 36/2009 are entitled to
compensation?
iii. If so to what relief?
7) It is not in dispute that the complainants are having electric service connection No. 982 to their premises. In Ex. A2 it is mentioned that the complainant in C.C. 35/2009 Ms. Suneetha Kumari Dhanavath is sister of the deceased Ajay Kumar. They are residing on the upstairs of Shakti scooters situated at 3 lamps junction, Vizianagaram she was working as a lecturer in R.K. Degree College since 2006 and Mr. Zameer Khan was working in Uma Radio Repair Shop situated in front of house of the complainant. An iron board that was available in the first floor was intended to be shifted to the second floor as such the complainant and her brother Ajay Kumar along with Zameer Khan were pulling the iron board from second floor by tying with a rope. Suddenly the rope was cut off and the iron board touched the live high tension electric wire, and all the three persons received heavy electric shock. While Zameer Khan died on spot, Ajay Kumar who equally sustained burn injuries was taken to government hospital and while undergoing treatment he died. The complainant Ms. Suneetha Kumari Dhanavath had sustained burn injuries. The electricity department alleged that due to road widening work it informed the general public in the locality that there would not be power supply from 13.7.2007. Service meters provided to the respective buildings were removed and taken away by the opposite party. The opposite party while admitting that the power supply was disconnected on 13.7.2007 asserted that service meters were not taken away. In the written version at para-4 positive averment was made “no meters were removed from any of the premises in the locality”. The complainant in order to prove that meters were removed and taken away filed Photostat copy of statement for removal of service connection meters dt. 13.7.2007 marked as Ex. A1. There was categorical mention that the meters were removed. There is no need for the opposite party to deny all the facts including those facts evidenced from documents. This shows their credibility.
8) The opposite party admitted that apart from their officials, the officials of municipality, R&B, police department have made wide publicity about the stoppage of power supply from 13.7.2007 onwards. The opposite party had mentioned that “ on 14.7.2007 at about 4.30 p.m. the widening work was taken up by the municipal authorities and the R&B department. Prior to the commencement of the said road widening work, the power supply was cut off to the widening area i.e., in between three lamps junction to Ambati Satram junction. The road widening work was commenced by giving sufficient announcement by the municipal authorities and started in the presence of officials of all the above departments after power supply was cut off and the same was continued till sunset. At the end of the day’s work the municipal authorities, R&B department, the police and the electricity department have decided to restore the power supply to the entire buildings in the locality by 8.30 p.m. on that day and the same was announced in the locality by the municipality and the electricity department. Further it was specifically decided by all the above departments to take up the widening work on the next day i.e., on 15.7.2007 at 10.00 a.m. onwards and the power supply to the buildings in the locality is to be provided till such time.” In other words they have provided the electricity from 8.30 p.m. on 14.7.2007 and in the meantime the public was required not to take up any demolition work till it was restored on 15.7.2007 at 10.00 a.m.
9) Evidently on 15.7.2007 at 8.00 a.m., the complainant and her brother Ajay Kumar with the help of one Mr. Zamir Khan went up stairs to remove the small display board kept in front portion of shop room tied with ropes and all of a sudden the rope fell on the electrical wires and in the process Mr. Zamir Khan, and the brother of the complainant died, while she had sustained injuries on right hand, both legs, foot palm and other parts of the body. They allege that the opposite party did not inform about the resumption of power supply and as such they took up the above said work of removing the display board from the shop, and in the process they were electrocuted.
10) The opposite party alleged that they had given prior intimation of resumption of electricity by giving adequate notice to the residents and therefore they could not be found fault with when the complainant had taken up such work. The very complainant admits in the complaint as well as in the report to the police while lifting the display board, all of a sudden one side rope fell on the electrical wires, due to high tension electrocution in the live wires, which are lying very close to the building, touched with the rope and suddenly live electricity passed from the wires which is quite contrary to the advertisement of the opposite party and flames came out. In the preliminary report prepared by the Asst. Divisional Engineer, Vizianagaram vide Ex. B1 mentioned the detailed causes leading to the accident “ while pulling their hoarding upwards it touched 11 KV poolbaugh line at 3 lamps centre, Vizianagaram.”
11) The Assistant Engineer who visited the spot gave his statement in Ex. B2. He mentioned “ On enquiry I came to know that Sri Ajay, S/o. Naresh Kumar Dhanavat, aged 21 years at about 6.30 a.m. along with Shaik Zameer Khan and his sister Kumari Suneetha, trying to lift the name board from the 1st floor to 2nd floor the rope was cut and the hoarding touched the 11 KV line which is passing by the side of the building and got electric shock. Sri Shaik Zameer was died on the spot and the other two were injured and taken to the hospital.” A detailed report was given by the Asst. Divisional Engineer, Vizianagaram under Ex. B4 mentioning that “On 14.7.2007 at about 12.30 p.m. it was decided by the municipal authorities, Vizianagaram to widen the existing A.G. Road from 3 Lamps to Ambati Satrum junction, in the presence of Hon’ble MLA, municipal chairman, Commissioner, R&B authorities, ADE/T/VZM and AE/D2/VZM. On the same day at about 4.30 p.m. the widening work was taken up by the R&B and municipal authorities. The HT/LT power supply cut off to the widening area from Ambati Satrum junction to 3 Lamps junction at 4.30 p.m. on 14.7.2007 and again power was restored at 8.25 p.m. after stoppage of work. It was decided by the municipal authorities and other officials to take up the work on 15.7.2007 at 10.00 a.m. onwards. Oral intimation was given to one and all not to come nearer the electrical lines.” From this it is beyond doubt that no intimation was given individually to the consumers or taken all precautions to see that communication was received by all the consumers of electricity. At coloumn No. 10 he was of the opinion that “the filed staff are not responsible since the supply stopped. While road widening works is in progress and supply restored after completion of works as per the decision in the meeting restored after completion of the work with a view not to cause inconvenience to the large number of consumers living in and around the area.” The Divisional Engineer based on this report finally opined that “ the accident occurred as the rope with which the name board is being lifted was cut in the middle, due to which the board fell on the line.”
12) From the narration of events by both sides the following un-controverted facts can be culled out :
i) When the complainant along with two others were trying to remove the name board from first floor to second floor the rope was cut and the hoarding touched the 11 KV line passing by the side of the building and got electrocuted. Had this rope not been cut they could have safely retrieved it, and the accident could not have been caused.
ii) Had the opposite party not restored the power supply by that time or informed the complainants about it, even accidental fall of hoarding would not have caused electrocution to all these persons.
13) It is a catch 22 situation. It is a sort of negligence where both sides contributed to the incident. In case where negligence of the parties is contemporaneous or nearly so contemporaneous, as to make it, impossible to say that either could have avoided the consequences of the other negligence, both parties would be held to have substantially caused the accident. If the defendant is able to prove the contributory negligence claim, the plaintiff may be totally barred from recovering damages or his damages may be reduced to reflect her role in the resulting injury. Deciding who is at fault can be rather complex. The fair settlement of the problem reflects both parties' responsibility for the injury.
14) Where any person suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person or persons, a claim in respect of that damage will not be defeated by reason of the fault of the person suffering the damage, but the damages recoverable in respect thereof would l be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility for the damage.
15) The comparative negligence or non-absolute contributory negligence is the conduct on the part of the plaintiff which falls below the standard of conduct which he should conform to for his own protection and which is a legally contributing cause in bringing about the plaintiff's harm. In most of the countries contributory negligence has been replaced by some form of comparative negligence. In a comparative negligence system, the injured party may still recover some of his or her damages even if he or she was partially to blame for causing the damage. Comparative negligence is a partial legal defence that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim based upon the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to cause the injury.
16) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.O. Antony Vs. Karvarnan reported in I (2008) CPJ 84 (SC) considered this aspect of the matter and observed :
“ ‘Composite negligence’ refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong-doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the Court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence.”
No doubt it was a case of accident involving motor vehicles, however, as far as contributory negligence in a given case is concerned the very same yardstick could be applied.
17) There is contributory negligence on the part of victims. They have to take precaution to see that the rope was not cut and severed from the hoarding, equally so on the part of opposite party electricity department in restoring the power supply without prior intimation. They ought to have taken precaution to see that no work was taken up by the consumers in the meantime. Whatever be the reason the complainant in C.C. 35/2009 Ms. Sunitha Kumar Dhanawat had sustained injuries.
18) The complainant in C.C. 35/2009 who has sustained injuries was admitted in the government hospital where they found “ electrical bun injuries, gangrene of finger & toes of right hand and both feet of about 8%. Amputation of toes done. Debridment and skin grafting done vide Ex. A4. Later she was admitted in Tirumala Hospitals, Vizianagaram. In the discharge summary Ex. A6 there was a mention that she had “Right upper limb, arm, forearm 3%, right hand 1%, right foot 2-1/2%, left foot 8% deep burns. Surgery was conducted for release of right arm and forearm compartrctures with FASCIOTOMY under general anaesthesia.
Following surgeries were carried out for patient during treatment.
Stage-I- Fasciotomy + Escharectomy + Debridment done
Stage-II – Wound debridment of the gangrenous portions done
Stage-III – Split skin grafting done.
The patient was advised to have graft care, physiotherapy and to attend any institutions at Hyderabad for further follow up and management. An amount of Rs. 1,89,903/- was estimated for the above said treatment. The doctors gave a certificate that she has been recovered from electrical burns. The Dist. Medical Board, Vizianagaram issued Medical Certificate Ex. A8 mentioning disability was ‘60% post burn complications – Right upper limb’.
19) She did her post graduation in M.Sc., (Chemistry) and in fact a gold medallist. According to her she was working as part time lecturer on gross salary of Rs. 3,990/- per month and also holding Guest lectures in Chemistry for Intermediate students EAMCET classes from June 2006 to July, 2007 on hourly basis @ Rs. 6,000/- per month vide Ex. A16 salary and service certificate issued by R.K. Junior College, Vizianagaram. No doubt by virtue of her educational qualification she could be gainfully employed on a permanent basis at least at a salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. Equally so she could go to higher levels in her avocation.
20) The complainant is un-married and was aged 24 years. An estimation of Rs. 1,89,903/- was given under Ex. A7 by Tirumala Nursing Home for conducting surgery besides Rs. 1,500/- towards OT fees, Rs 8,000/- towards PBL right palm and also estimation of Rs 75,000/- issued by NIMS under Ex. 13 in all Rs. 2,74,403/-. The complainant could not file any other document in order to establish the amounts spent towards further treatment. However a reasonable estimate could be now arrived at that she had spent about Rs. 3 lakhs.
21) The evidence discloses that she was not permanently employed as yet and however as she passed M.Sc., Obviously, she being a postgraduate she would have got at least a reasonable salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month. With regard to computation of compensation the multiplier adopted under M.V. Act can be invoked as it is evolved on scientific basis. If an amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- is taken as her annual income and if the multiplier ‘17’ is applied it would come to Rs. 30,60,000/-. If 60% of the disability that was accepted as disclosed from the certificate it would come to Rs. 18,36,000/-. Since we are of the opinion that she had contributed to the accident and if 50% is deducted it would come to Rs. 9,18,000/- + Rs. 3 lakhs towards medical expenses = Rs. 12,18,000/-. This amount we feel reasonable and modest in the circumstances of the case.
22) In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 12,18,000/- together with costs computed at Rs. 5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
C.C. 36/2009
23) Ajay Kumar Dhanwath son of first and second complainants and brother of third and fourth complainants died in the above incident vide Ex. Ex. A4 inquest report and Ex. A5 post-mortem examination certificate. He was aged 22 years. The inquest report shows that he along with his brother running a scooter shop under the name and style of Shakthi Scooter. It was stated in the notice Ex. A9 got issued by the complainants that he was completing MBA course and he was having a chance of getting placed in good position in and around the country and in abroad and may get salary or remuneration of Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 80,000/- per month. Unfortunately the complainants did not file any evidence to show that he had pursued his MBA. It was not known as to the earnings of the family in order to assess a reasonable compensation. The complainants for the reasons best known did not adduce any evidence. Nothing was stated in the affidavit evidence filed by the complainants as to the probable income he would gain if he were gainfully employed. In the light of positive evidence, he being pursuing MBA and his sister was a lecturer it cannot be said that he would not get very same salary as both of them are postgraduates. Had the complainants adduced evidence, determination of income could not have been vague. Considering the nature of his occupation and the family background from which he came, a reasonable amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month with all future prospects could be reckoned as his income he being a bachelor, the age of his mother at 44 years was taken for reckoning the multiplier. . Her age could be taken as decisive factor since his contribution to the family could not have been more than that. The multiplier that could be applied in cases of this nature would be ‘15’. If an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- (@ Rs. 10,000/- p.a. x 12) is taken as his annual income if 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal expenses it would come to Rs. 80,000/- , and if the multiplier ‘15’ is applied it would come to Rs. 12,00,000/-. Since we are of the opinion that he had contributed to the accident and if 50% is deducted it would come to Rs. 6,00,000/-, and an amount of Rs. 40,000/- is added towards loss of estate and love and affection, it would come to Rs. 6,40,000/- which we feel reasonable and modest.
24) In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 6,40,000/- together with costs computed at Rs. 5,000/-. Out of said compensation, first complainant mother is entitled to Rs. 3 lakhs, while the second complainant father is entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs and remaining complainants 3 & 4 are entitled to Rs. 70,000/- each. Time for compliance four weeks.
C.C. 35/2009
25) In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 12,18,8, Rs. 3 lakhs towards medical expenses = Rs. 12,18,000/-000/- together with costs computed at Rs. 5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
C.C. 36/2009
26) In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 6,40,000/- together with costs computed at Rs. 5,000/-. Out of said compensation, first complainant mother is entitled to Rs. 3 lakhs, while the second complainant father is entitled to Rs. 2 lakhs and remaining complainants 3 & 4 are entitled to Rs. 70,000/- each. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________
PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________
MEMBER
Dt. 17. 01. 2011.
*pnr
