IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 42/2009 (Filed on 23.03.2009)
Between:
1. Rajeevan. T., S/o late
K.N. Thankappan,
Kottakunnil House, Konni P.O.,
Mangaram Muri, Konni Village.
2. Sajeevan. T.K., S/o late
K.N. Thankappan,
Kottakunnil House, Konni P.O.,
Mangaram Muri, Konni Village.
2. Sarojini Amma, W/o late
Kunju Pillai, Kottakunnil House,
Konni P.O.,
Mangaram Muri, Konni Village. … Complainant.
(By Adv. Mohankumar)
And:
1. The Proprietor,
M/s. Net Work Cable Vision,
Reg. No.PTA/CTV/138/02,
China Junction, Konni – 689 691.
(By Adv. K.G. Muraleedharan Unnithan)
2. The Kerala State Electricity Board,
Represented by its Secretary,
Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom,
Thiruvananthapuram.
3. The Assistant Engineer,
Electrical Major Section,
Konni. … Opposite parties
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The brief facts of this complaint is as follows: The complainants 1, 2 and 3 are the legal heirs of late K.S. Maniyamma who died on 22.03.2007 by electrocution from a live T.V. cable at her residence at Konni. The complainants 1 and 2 are the children of the deceased and the third complainant is the mother of the deceased. Deceased Maniyamma was a widow and her death was at the age of 51. She was very hard working, capable and bold in such a manner to maintain her 2 children by providing them proper education and care as her husband K.N. Thankappan died in her 40th age. First complainant is a science graduate and second complainant is an MBA degree holder. The deceased looked after her children and maintaining the family by cultivating rubber in her 1 acre land by doing whole works including rubber tapping by her own physical labour. In addition to this, she was receiving a monthly family pension of ` 1,000 from Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. where her husband was employed. She was the sole income generator in the family of the complainants at the time of her death.
3. The first opposite party is operating a cable net work in and around Konni under the name and style “Net Link Cable Vision” and the second complainant is a subscriber of the first opposite party with consumer No. 52. The first opposite party has not made adequate safety measures in the residence of the complainants for protecting electrocution, as provided under the law. The opposite parties 2 and 3 are also duty bound to verify the safety measures installed by the first opposite party in providing cable net work connection. The complainants allegation is that the above said laches and negligence of the opposite parties resulted in the death of the deceased due to electrocution from the live T.V. cable at her residence provided by the first opposite party. At the time of the above said electrocution, the third complainant tried to rescue the deceased and at that time she also suffered electric shock and she was thrown away by the impact of the electric shock and sustained serious fractures to her back bone and was treated in the SSM Hospital, Konni for a prolonged time for which a sum of ` 25,000 was incurred for the treatment. Because of the above said incidents, complainants were put to irreparable injury and loss. The said incidents were happened due to the deficiency of service of the opposite parties and the opposite parties are liable to the complainants for the same. Hence this complaint for the realization of ` 5 lakhs under various heads along with interest and cost from the opposite parties, though the actual damages are calculated for ` 12,75,000.
4. Opposite parties entered appearance and filed their versions. First opposite party filed a separate version and second and third opposite parties filed a common version.
5. The main contention of the first opposite party is as follows: According to the first opposite party, this complaint is not maintainable due to the following 2 grounds. The first ground is that this complaint is barred by limitation as the date of occurrence is on 22.03.2007 and this complaint was filed on 21.03.2009. The second ground is that as on the date of the alleged incident, the complainant is not a subscriber of the first opposite party as the complainants’ cable T.V. connection was disconnected by the first opposite party on 20.12.2006 due to the non-payment of the monthly charges.
6. The other contentions of the first opposite party is as follows: The allegation that the deceased Maniyamma died out of electrocution from a live T.V. cable is baseless and false as the connection was not live on the date of electrocution. The first opposite party admitted that they are operating cable net work in Konni locality. The allegation that the first opposite party had not made adequate safety measures is false. While the complainants are provided with cable connection, it was given with adequate safety measures. The first opposite party had provided connections to about 500 consumers and all these connections are provided with adequate safety measures. According to the first opposite party, after they have disconnected the complainants’ cable connection, the complainants had connected their T.V. with dish antenna installed in their residence. And while the deceased was working in rains outside her residence, she came to the house and negligently tried to remove the pin from the socket of the extension code attached to the T.V. and suffered electrocution due to her sheer negligence which resulted in the death of the deceased. From the said circumstances, it is definite that it is out of the negligence of the deceased and that of the complainants that the mishap happened, for which none of the opposite parties are responsible. The first opposite party had absolutely no connection with the death of the deceased and he is unnecessarily dragged into an experimental litigation by the complainants taking undue advantage of an unfortunate occurrence. It is also pertinent to note that had there been any nexus between the occurrence and the first opposite party police would not have spared him. It is also relevant that the complainants took more than 2 years to weave and fasten such a story against the opposite parties. In the circumstances, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the first opposite party. With the above contentions, first opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
7. The contentions of the second and third opposite parties is as follows: According to the second and third opposite parties, the report about the electrical accident from cable T.V. socket in the house of the deceased came to the notice only on 23.03.2007 through newspaper. As per Electricity Rules, any accident due to electric shock from within the internal installation, the same should be immediately reported to the Assistant Executive Engineer and the Electrical Inspector. Neither the complainants nor any others informed the matter to the offices of the second and third opposite parties. On getting the information from the newspaper, the third opposite party visited the site and prepared a site mahazar and the matter was reported to the Electrical Inspector, Pathanamthitta on 24.03.2007 as per the electricity rules. On getting the said report, Electrical Inspector prepared a detailed report after inspecting the site. Being the supplier of electricity in the locality, second and third opposite parties ensured the prescribed standards as envisaged in the Electricity Act and Rules. The internal installation for electricity is maintained and operated by the consumers themselves. The complainants themselves admitted that the accident was occurred from a cable T.V. line provided inside their house. The K.S.E. Board is not responsible with regard to the maintenance or testing of wiring in consumers premises and they are also not responsible for the accident occurred inside the premises from an installation maintained and operated by the consumers. Opposite parties are also ensuring that the cable T.V. line drawn along with their electric posts are maintained safely as per this rules. The electrical installations of the answering opposite parties are provided with adequate safety devices at all points wherever required statutorily. The consumers are responsible for providing adequate safety measures in their installation so as to protect them from all types of electrical hazards. Since the accident is from the cable of the first opposite party, it is their duty to provide safety device installed by them. The answering opposite parties are not aware of any report of electrical shock from cable T.V. net work in this locality as alleged by the complainant. No complaint for the same is received from anybody. Such an allegation raised after 2 years without any supporting evidence is totally against facts. This is clearly a misguiding statement by the complainants to support their case. The second and third opposite parties were dragged in this case unnecessarily by the complainants. The answering opposite parties has not committed any deficiency of service. With the above contentions, the second and third opposite parties also prays for the dismissal of the complaint with their cost.
8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points were raised for consideration.
(1) Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
(2) Whether the reliefs sought for in the complaint are allowable?
(3) Reliefs and Costs?
9. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral testimony of PWs. 1 to 3 and DWs. 1 to 5 and Exts. A1 to A10 and B1 to B4.
10. Points 1 to 3: The complainants’ allegation is that due to the laches and negligence committed by the opposite parties in ensuring adequate safety measures to the cable drawn by the first opposite party for providing cable T.V. connection to the complainants’ house, the complainants’ mother sustained electrocution from the T.V. cable on 22.03.2007 and died due to the said electrocution. Due to the death of the deceased, the complainants are put to mental agony and irreparable injuries and sufferings and the opposite parties are liable to the complainants for the same.
11. In order to prove the case of the complainants, the second complainant filed a proof affidavit along with 8 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the second complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A8. 2 witnesses were also examined from the side of the complainants as PWs.2 and on the basis of the proof affidavit filed by them. 2 other documents were also marked for the complainants as Exts. A9 and A10 through DW2.
12. Ext. A1 is the death report in Form No.2 issued by the Additional Sub Inspector of Police, Konni in respect of the death of Maniyamma. Ext. A2 is the death certificate dated 16.04.2007 issued from Konni Grama Panchayat in respect of the death of the deceased Maniyamma. Ext. A3 is the postmortem certificate dated 23.03.2007 issued from General Hospital, Pathanamthitta in respect of the postmortem of the deceased. Ext. A4 is the FIR and FIS and Ext. A5 is the scene mahazar. Ext. A6 is the inquest report prepared by the Konni Police in connection with the death of Maniyamma. Ext. A7 is the final report prepared by the Konni Police in respect of the death of Maniyamma. Ext. A8 is the detailed report dated 20.09.2007 prepared by the District Electrical Inspectorate, Pathanamthitta under Right to Information. Ext. A9 is the site mahazar dated 26.03.2007 prepared by the Electrical Inspectorate, Pathanamthitta in respect of the death of the deceased. Ext. A10 is the statement of the first opposite party recorded by the Assistant Electrical Inspector, Pathanamthitta.
13. On the other hand, the contention of the first opposite party is that the complainants are not the customers of the first opposite party on the date of the alleged incident as their connection was disconnected on 20.12.2006 for the non-payment of the monthly subscription/charges and they have not yet get their connection reconnected. As the house of the complainants are not connected with the cable net work system of the first opposite party, the allegation that the death of the deceased was due to the electrocution from the cable line is false and devoid of truth. So according to the first opposite party, he is not responsible for the death of the deceased. First opposite party’s knowledge and information regarding the death of the deceased is that at the time of the incident, there was heavy rain and lightning in that locality and at that time the deceased was washing cloths outside and she came to the room in a wet condition and tried to disconnect T.Vs power supply for protecting the T.V. from lightning and at that time she had sustained electrocution from the electric plug point. The said T.V. is connected with a dish antenna and not with the first opposite party’s cable system. So her death is due to the electrocution from the lightning and it is clear from Ext. A3 postmortem certificate.
14. In order to prove the contentions of the first opposite party, the first opposite party filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 2 documents. 2 witnesses were also produced by the first opposite party. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the first opposite party was examined as DW2 and the documents produced were marked as Exts.B2 series and B3 series. Ext. B2 is the subscription collection register kept by the first opposite party for the year 2005-06. Ext. B2(a) is the page No.64 of the first part of Ext. B2 in the name of second complainant. Ext. B2(b) is the page No.62 of the second part of Ext. B2 in the name of the second complainant. Ext. B3 is the subscription collection register kept by the first opposite party for the year 2006-07. Ext. B3(a) is the page No.52 of Ext. B3 in the name of the second complainant. The witnesses produced were the officials of the Electrical Inspectorate, Pathanamthitta and they were examined as DWs. 1 and 3. Apart from Exts. B2 and B3, the statement of one P.M. Sasi recorded by the Electrical Inspector is also marked as Ext. B1 for the first opposite party through PW3.
15. The contention of the second and third opposite is that they have not committed any negligence or deficiency in service. Being the supplier of electricity in the locality; they have ensured the prescribed standards as envisaged in the Electricity Act and Rules. Since the alleged incident took place in the premises of the consumer, the answering opposite party is not responsible for the accident took place inside the premises. Further, the complainant admitted that the accident was occurred from a cable T.V. line provided inside the house of the deceased. Opposite parties ensured that the cable T.V. line drawn along with their electric posts are maintained safely as per the rules. The consumers are responsible for providing adequate safely measures in their installation so as to protect them from all types of electrical hazards. On getting the information about the accident, they visited the site and prepared a site mahazar and they have reported the matter to the Electrical Inspectorate who in turn had taken appropriate steps in this matter. Since the accident was occurred inside the premises of the deceased from the cable line of first opposite party, opposite parties 2 and 3 are not liable and responsible to the complainant.
16. In order to prove the contentions of the opposite parties 2 and 3, they produced 2 officials of K.S.E. Board and they were examined as DWs.3 and 5 and the site mahazar prepared in respect of the alleged incident is marked as Ext. B4.
17. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the entire materials on record and found that there is no dispute between the parties with regard to the death of the deceased Maniyamma due to electrocution. The only question to be decided is who is responsible for the said electrocution. According to the complainants, the said electrocution occurred due to the negligence and laches of the opposite parties in providing adequate safety measures for avoiding such type of electrocution. According to the first opposite party, the house of the deceased is not connected with the cable T.V. net work of the first opposite party on the date of the alleged incident and the death was due to the lightning occurred at that time. According to opposite parties 2 and 3, they have no definite case in respect of the alleged electrocution and their argument is that they have ensured adequate safety measures to their installation and to the cable T.V. line drawn by the first opposite party through the electric posts of the second opposite party. However, they have indirectly made an allegation against the first opposite party for fastening the liability to the first opposite party.
18. -In the light of the rival contentions raised by the parties and on the basis of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the oral depositions of the witnesses are not much relevant as this accident involves certain technical aspects and none of the witnesses are eye witnesses to the alleged incident. In the circumstances, we are constrained to examine the contents of the exhibits marked in evidence from either side. Exts. A1 to A10 are marked for the complainants. Ext. A3 is the postmortem certificate of the deceased Maniyamma. As per Ext. A3, the opinion as to the cause of death is recorded as “due to lightning injury (electrocution)”. Exts. A4, A5 and A6 are the First Information Report, Site Mahazar and the Inquest Report respectively prepared by Konni Police in connection with the death of the deceased. FIR, FIS and Inquest Report clearly shows that the deceased died while she was removing the T.V. plug from the socket. In Ext. A5 scene mahazar, there is no mention about the cable connection so as to prove that the T.V. in that house is connected to the cable T.V. net work of the first opposite party. Further, nothing was recovered from the house of the deceased by the Police in connection with the incident so as to prove that the T.V. of the complainant was connected with the first opposite party’s net work system. Ext. A7 is the final report of the crime registered by Konni Police in connection with the death of the deceased and in the final report also no mention against the first opposite party and the final report also reveals that the incident was due to the electrocution from the electric plug point. Ext. A4, A5 and A6 are prepared immediately after the occurrence and is prepared on the basis of the information received and gathered by the police from the concerned parties. Ext. A7 was prepared on 26.04.2007 and it is the refer report of the crime registered in connection with the incident. It is also seen from Ext. A7 that the defacto complainant was served with notice stating that the crime is referred. As per the relevant provisions of Cr.PC, in such cases, the complainants can approach proper judicial forums for filing protest complaint against the refer reports.
19. Ext. A8 is the report prepared by the Electrical Inspector, Pathanamthitta and submitted to the Chief Electrical Inspector, Thiruvananthapuram. The said report is prepared on 20.09.2007. This report is based on Ext. A9 site mahazar dated 26.03.2007 alleged to have been prepared by the Electrical Inspector, Pathanamthitta in respect of the incident. Ext. A10 is the statement of first opposite party recorded on 19.04.2007 by the Electrical Inspector, Pathanamthitta. Ext. A9 site mahazar was prepared on 26.03.2007 i.e. after 4 days from the date of incident. As per Ext. A8 report, the main reason of the incident is natural calamity. The other 2 factors are the negligence of the deceased and the first opposite party. It is evident from column No. 12 in Ext. A8. As per column No. 14 in Ext. A8, there is no eye witness for the incident. As per column No. 15 in Ext. A8, the Electrical Inspector recorded the statements of 4 persons who are not eye witnesses of the alleged incident. As per certain other records, one Sarojini, the mother of the deceased is the first witness to this incident. But the said Sarojini is not questioned or her statement is not taken by the Electrical Inspector. It is also pertinent to note that the said Sarojiniyamma is not brought to this Forum who is also an injured in the incident as claimed by the complainants. Why they have avoided the said Sarojini from this enquiry. As per the depositions of DWs. 1 and 3, the officials of the Electrical Inspectorate, Ext.A8 report is based on the statements of the persons mentioned in column No. 15 of Ext. A8. Out of the statements of these witnesses, the statement of the first opposite party is marked as Ext. A10. As per Ext. A10, the statement was recorded by one R.V. Subramanyam. But his signature is not seen in Ext. A10. In the place of the signature of said Subramanyam, the signature of first opposite party is seen. In this connection, the answer of PW3 to a question put by the counsel for the first opposite party is as follows:- “kp{_-Ò-Wy\v H¸n-Sp-¶-Xn\v XS-Êsam-¶p-an-Ãm-bn-cp¶p”. Moreover, the Electrical Inspectorate and the witnesses of the Electrical Inspectorate mentioned about a T.V. cable in the place of occurrence. But they have not mentioned anything about the length of the said cable and its connecting points of its both ends. The length, the nature and the connecting points of the T.V. cable alleged to have been seen in the room where the accident took place is very material in a case like this. None of the officials recovered any material objects in this case or one of them made any description of the cable. All the above said facts cast serious doubts about the genuineness of Ext. A10 statement and the bonafides of the Electrical Inspectorate. So the assumptions and presumptions and observations of the Electrical Inspectorate not sustainable. It is also pertinent to note that so far no action has been taken against the first opposite party either by the police or by the Electrical Inspectorate or by the Electricity Board.
20. The defence of the first opposite party has to be considered in the light of the above said observations. The first opposite party’s definite case is that the complainants are not the subscribers of the first opposite party. In order to prove this aspect, Exts. B2 and B3, the subscription collection registers kept by the first opposite party for the years 2005 to 2007, were marked. As per Exts. B2(a), B2(b) and B3(a), the complainants are not subscriber of the first opposite party from December 2005. This was not disproved by the complainants by producing any documents like subscribers’ card or monthly charge receipts etc. In this respect, the following portion of the deposition of PW1 is very relevant “1st opposite party \ÂIn-bn-cp¶ consumer card lmP-cn-¡n-bn-«n-Ã. ……………… cable charge A½ t\cn-«mWv \ÂIn-bn-cp-¶-Xv. cko-Xp-IÄ A½-bpsS ssIhiw Bbn-cp¶p”. The said deposition indicates that the complainants are in possession of the consumer card and the receipts of the cable charges. If that be so, what prevented them to bring the said documents before this Forum to prove that they are the consumers of the first opposite party on the date of alleged incident. So we are constrained to accept the contentions of the first opposite party that his cable line is not connected with the house of the complainants.
21. From the available evidence on record, it is seen that at the time of the incident there was rain, lightning and thunder, the deceased came to the room wearing with wet cloths and she removed electric plug from its socket and there was no cable connection to that house from the cable net work system owned and operated by the first opposite party. This fact read together with Ext. A3 postmortem certificate and the inordinate delay in filing this complaint clearly establishes that the deceased died due to the impact of lightning and none of the opposite parties are liable or responsible for this unfortunate event. Therefore, we find no deficiency against the opposite parties and hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.
22. In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by him, corrected be me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 22nd day of March, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainants:
PW1 : Sajeevan. T.K.
PW2 : S. Vipin.
PW3 : Sasi.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainants:
A1 : Death report in Form No.2 issued by the Additional Sub Inspector
of Police, Konni in respect of the death of Maniyamma.
A2 : Death certificate dated 16.04.2007 issued from Konni Grama
Panchayat in respect of the death of the deceased Maniyamma.
A3 : Postmortem certificate dated 23.03.2007 issued from General
Hospital, Pathanamthitta in respect of the postmortem of the
deceased.
A4 : First Information Report & First Information Statement.
A5 : Scene mahazar.
A6 : Inquest report prepared by the Konni Police in connection with
the death of Maniyamma.
A7 : Final report prepared by the Additional Sub Inspector of Police,
Konni in respect of the death of Maniyamma.
A8 : Detailed report dated 20.09.2007 prepared by the Electrical
Inspector, Electrical Inspectorate, Pathanamthitta under
right to information.
A9 : Site mahazar dated 26.03.2007 prepared by the Electrical Inspector,
Electrical Inspectorate, Pathanamthitta in respect of the death of
the deceased.
A10 : Statement of the first opposite party recorded by the Assistant
Electrical Inspector, Electrical Inspectorate, Pathanamthitta.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties :
DW1 : Benny Koshy.
DW2 : Pradeep. P. Nair.
DW3 : M.G. Dileepkumar.
DW4 : V.K. Rajan.
DW5 : P. Viswambharan.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties :
B1 : Statement of P.M. Sasi recorded by the Electrical Inspector,
Electrical Inspectorate, Pathanamthitta.
B2 : Subscription collection register kept by the first opposite party for
the year 2005-06.
B2(a) : Page No.64 of the first part of Ext. B2 in the name of second
complainant.
B2(b) : Page No.62 of the second part of Ext. B2 in the name of the second
complainant.
B3 : Subscription collection register kept by the first opposite party for
the year 2006-07.
B3(a) : Page No.52 of Ext. B3 in the name of the second complainant.
B4 : Site mahazar dated 23.03.2007 prepared by the third opposite
party in respect of the death of the deceased.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Rajeevan. T., Kottakunnil House, Konni P.O., Mangaram Muri,
Konni Village.
(2) Sajeevan. T.K., Kottakunnil House, Konni P.O.,
Mangaram Muri, Konni Village.
(3) Sarojini Amma, Kottakunnil House, Konni P.O.,
Mangaram Muri, Konni Village.
(4)The Proprietor, M/s. Net Work Cable Vision,
Reg. No.PTA/CTV/138/02, China Junction, Konni – 689 691.
(5) The Secretary, Kerala State Electricity Board,
Vaidyuthi Bhavan, Pattom, Thiruvananthapuram.
(6) The Assistant Engineer, Electrical Major Section, Konni.
(7) The Stock File.
