Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/180/2019

Sri. K.C. Dinesh S/o Late Chandrappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

Rangaswamy S/o Venkatesh, - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.B.Prasannakumar

28 Jun 2019

ORDER

 

COMPLAINT FILED ON:19/02/2019

DISPOSED      ON:13/06/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

C.C.NO:180/2019

DATED: 13th JUNE 2019

 

PRESENT :-         SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH      :   PRESIDENT                                                     B.A., LL.B.,

SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,         :     LADY MEMBER

                             SRI. SHIVAKUMAR.K.N         :     MEMBER

                                      M.Com., LL.B.,

……COMPLAINANT/S	Sri. K.C. Dinesh W/o Late Chandrappa Aged about 42 years, Agriculturist, R/o  Upparigenahally Village, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga Taluk & District.   (Reptd. By Sri.B. Prasanna, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. Rangaswamy S/o Venkatesh, Aged about 30 years, Borewell agent, R/o Kereyagalahally Village, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District.   2. A. Mohan S/o Armugam, Owner of bore well drilling vehicle Bearing No.KA-01 -MQ-6886, R/o # 13, 4th main road, NT Pet, Bangalore-02. Cell No.9443240817   (Reptd. By Sri.D.H. Shanmukappa, Advocate for OP No.1 and OP No.2 ex-parte)

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 redrill the bore well in his land bearing sy.No.92 measuring 4-acres situated at Kereyagahalli village, Talya Hobli, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District or to repay Rs.87,500/- with interest @ 12% p.a, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs and such other reliefs.  

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant is that, he is the owner of land bearing sy.No.92 measuring 4-acres situated at Kereyagahalli village, Talya Hobli, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District, which is a dry land and yielding crops in rainy season only.  To improve the above said land and to convert into irrigated land, in the first week of February 2018, the complainant approached the OP No.1, who is the bore well agent under OP No.2 to drill the bore well.  Thereafter, on 10.02.2018, the OP No.2 drilled the bore well for a depth of 820 feet and received Rs.87,500/- towards drilling charges.  Then on 18.03.2018 the complainant while installing the IP set and pipes to the bore well as the sufficient water in the depth of 800 feet, it went for 200 feet depth only.  After due enquiry, it came to know that, the OPs were not diged the bore well properly as the hole of bore well may be crossed or while drilling the above bore sell, the small drilling bit may be used, as such for the installation of IP set with pipes is impossible.  Immediately the complainant communicate the OPs about the defects, they promised to re-drill the same, but they did not turn up and thereafter refused to re-drill the bore well, which is a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  Due to the act of the OPs, the complainant has sustained loss of Rs.87,500/- for drilling the bore well and Rs.1,50,000/- towards purchase of IP set and pipes.    The cause of action for this complaint arose on 10.02.2018, when the OPs drilled the bore well and on 18.03.2018 when the complainant failed to install the IP set and pipes in the bore well and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

3.      After service of notice, OP No.1 appeared through Sri. D.H. Shanmukappa, Advocate, but failed to file version, affidavit to disprove the case of complainant.  As per the order of this Forum dated 23.04.2019, the complaint as against OP No.2 is dismissed. 

4.      The complainant has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-3 were 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 committed deficiency in service in drilling the bore well in his land 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 12.06.2017 at about 1-30 PM, the said deceased was going to graze his sheep near the land of OP No.5, by that time, by that time the deceased A. Shivaraj entered into the said land along with sheep and came in contact with the electric live wire which was erected to the fencing and died at the spot due to electrocution.  The OP No.5 has taken electric connection to his land by obtaining the permission from the OP No.1 to 4.  After the incident, a criminal case was registered against the OPs before Molakalmuru Police Station under Crime No.159/2017.  OP NO.1 to 4 have not taken proper care to the electric wire connected to the land of OP No.5, which is a deficiency of service, which caused the death of the husband of complainant No.1.  OP No.1 to 4 are the electric supplier and operator and it is the fundamental duty of the OP No.1 to 4 to safeguard the public, but the OPs have failed to maintain the electric live wire which passes through the land of OP No.5, which caused the death of the husband of complainant No.1.   Due to the negligence act of OP No.1 to 4, the husband of the complainant No.1 died.  But, OP No.1 to 4 have denied that, they have not neglected in maintaining the electric line and according to them, the mistake is on the part of OP No.5, the death of husband of complainant No.1 is only due to negligence on the part of OP No.5 only. 

9.      It is argued by the Advocate for complainants that, the OP No.1 to 4 have not inspected and maintained the electric wire and they have not taken any care in maintaining the same to safeguard interest of the public at large.   No doubt, the deceased Shivaraj, aged about 32 years died due to electrical shock in the land of OP No.5 at Mogalahalli, Molakalmuru Taluk.   The concerned Police have registered a case against the OP No.5.  No doubt the death of above said person is due to electrocution due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 to 4.  

10.    According to OP No.1 to 4, the mistake is committed by the OP No.5, not by OP No.1 to 4.  The arguments advanced by the OP No.5 Advocate that, the concerned Police have filed a charge sheet against OP No.4.  The OP No.5 has taken proper permission to erect the electric line to his bore well by paying an amount of Rs.34,349/- under Self Execution Scheme.   Such being the case, the question of erection of electrical line un-authorizedly to the fencing of his land does not arise.  No doubt, it is an admitted fact that, the husband of complainant No.1 died due to electrical shock near the land of OP No.5. 

11.   We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainants and OPs.  After going through the documents it clearly shows that, on 12.06.2017, the husband of complainant No.1 by name Shivaraj was died due to electrocution near the land of OP No.5.  The same has been intimated to the OPs.  The concerned Police have also inspected the spot and drawn mahazar.  The officer of OP No.1 to 4 have inspected the spot and drawn mahazar.  According to OP No.1 to 4, they have not committed any deficiency of service in maintaining the electrical wire and Advocate for OP No.1 to 4 has argued that, the mistake is only on the part of OP No.5 in erecting the electrical connection to his land.  Here the case is on hand that, anyhow, the OP No.1 to 4 have accepted that, the death is due to electrical shock.  As per the documents produced by the complainants and OPs, it clearly shows that, the deceased Shivaraj was died due to electrical shock near the land of OP No.5 due to negligence act in maintaining the electric line properly by the OP No.1 to 4. 

As per the available citations of I (2005) CPJ778in 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.”

 

12.    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 complainants.   

13.    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 persons succumbed to the electrocution whose age was 48 and 15 years respectively, they were doing agricultural work and a student and the family of the complainants is depending upon the earnings of the deceased Thimmabhovi.  On the basis of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we would like to take notional income for a earning member is Rs.1,08,000/- p.a and age of the deceased earning member is 32 years and as per Sarala Varma’s citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the multiplier will comes to 17.  Then after deducting 1/3 of his income towards his personal expenses, the loss of love affection to the complainants from their son will be Rs.72,000 X 17 = Rs.12,24,000/-.  For the loss of love and affection by the complainants from family member, the award will be Rs.2,50,000/-.  So in all, the complainants are entitled to get for an amount of Rs.14,74,000/-.

 

14.    Hence, as discussed above in above paras, we come to the conclusion that, the complainants are entitled to get the compensation of Rs.14,74,000/- from OP No.1 to 4 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 by allowing the OP No.5 to erect the electric wire to his land.  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.    

  15.     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 complainants U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

It is ordered that the OP No.1 to 4 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.14,74,000/- to the complainants along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.   Out of the above said amount, the complainant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, complainant No.2 and 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- each, complainant No.4 is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,30,000/- and complainant No.5 is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,44,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.  

The amount awarded in favour of complainant No.2 and 3 is hereby ordered to deposit in any Nationalized Bank till their attaining majority.  The complainant No.1 is at liberty to draw the interest from the minors’ deposited amount for their educational purpose in three months once.  

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 to 4 are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- each towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant No.1. 

Complaint as against OP No.5 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 Members after the correction of the draft on 01/06/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

LADY MEMBER                     MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainants:

 

PW-1:  Complainant by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

 

DW-1: Sri.C. Chikkanna,  AEE of OP No.1 by way of affidavit evidence.

 

DW-2: Sri. Thuppada Nagaraj by way of affidavit evidence.

 

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

01	Ex-A-1:-	FIR
02	Ex-A-2:-	Complaint by one Sri.Anjinappa
03	Ex-A-3:-	P.M. report
04	Ex.A-4 & 5:	Letters dated 07.08.2017 by Anjinappa
05	Ex.A-6:-	No objection letter dated 15.07.2017
06	Ex.A-7:-	Genealogical tree
07	Ex.A-8:-	Affidavit by complainant No.1
08	Ex.A-9 & 10:-	Photos

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Letter dated 28.07.2017 by OPs
02	Ex-B-2:-	Letter dated 26.08.2017 by OPs
03	Ex-B-3:-	Official Memorandum dated 27.0792017 by OPs
04	Ex-B-4:-	Proceedings dated 13.10.2017 by the OPs
05	Ex-B-5:-	Statement to Government
06	Ex-B-6:-	Statement of the Section Officer
07	Ex-B-7:-	Sketch of accident spot
08	Ex-B-8:-	Letter dated 16.08.2017 by OPs
09	Ex-B-9:-	Estimate dated 29.04.2015
10	Ex-B-10:-	Estimate dated 29.04.2015
11	Ex-B-11:-	Letter to deceased dated 06.05.2015 by the OPs
12	Ex-B-12:-	FIR
13	Ex-B-13:-	Complaint by one Anjinappa
14	Ex-B-14:-	P.M. report
15	Ex-B-15 & 16:-	Letters dated 07.08.2015 by Anjinappa
16	Ex-B-17:-	No Objection Certificate
17	Ex-B-18:-	Spot mahazar
18	Ex-B-19:-	Photo

 

 

LADY MEMBER                     MEMBER                      PRESIDENT

Rhr**