BEFORE THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.945/2010 against C.C.No.86/2009, District Forum, WARANGAL
Between:
1. The Assistant Engineer,
N.P.Discom of A.P. Ltd.,
Kuravi-506 105,
Warangal District.
2. The Divisional Engineer,
Operations, N.P.Discom of
A.P. Ltd., Mahabubabad-506 101.
Warangal District.
3. The Managing Director,
Northern Power Distribution Company of
A.P. Ltd., Hanamkonda,
Warangal-506 004. Appellants/
Opp.parties
And
Smt.Bobbala Narasamma,
W/o.late Venkatanna,
R/o.Ayyagaripalli Village,
Kuravi Mandal-506 105,
Warangal District. Respondent/
Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants: M/s.O.Manohar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondent: Respondent appeared in person
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER
.
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH OF OCTOBER,
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral order:(Per Hon’ble Justice Sri D.Appa Rao, President)
***
The opposite party, electricity board, preferred this appeal against the order of the District Forum directing it to pay Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation on the death of the complainant’s husband in electrocution.
The case of the complainant in brief was that her husband Venkanna, a farm servant under one B.Narayana Reddy, went to the agricultural field on 13-12-2007 at about 11.30 a.m. wherein he came into contact with live service wire and got electrocuted and died. On a complaint given, the police registered the case in Crime No.139/07, conducted panchanama followed by charge sheet. In the post mortem report, the Civil Assistant Surgeon opined that the death was due to electric shock. Alleging that this was due to the negligence in maintaining the electric wires, the wife of the deceased filed the complaint claiming Rs.4,00,000/- with interest and costs.
The electricity board, the appellant herein for the reasons not known despite the fact that notice was served on it did not choose to contest the matter.
After considering the evidence of the complainant together with Exs.A1 and 10, the District Forum opined that it was a clear case of negligence on the part of the electricity board in not maintaining the electric wires carrying energy leading to the death of the deceased Venkanna by electrocution and allowed the complaint in part.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant, electricity board, preferred this appeal contending that as per clause 5.4.1.1 of GTCS, it is the duty of the landlord, who is having service connection to maintain his service wire. He has to inform if there is any leakage and for fault of the landlord, they ought not to be directed to pay compensation and therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed.
The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law in this regard?
It is an undisputed fact that the complainant’s husband, Venkanna, died of electrocution on 13/12/2007 when he was attending to agricultural operations on the land of one B.Narayana Reddy wherein he was a farm servant. Exs.A2 to A4 undoubtedly show that the deceased was electrocuted when he came into contact with live service wire and consequently died. Ex.A6 the final report besides the other documents filed by the complainant would undoubtedly show that there was leakage of electric supply and the husband of the complainant unknowingly came into contact, due to which he was electrocuted. The appellant did not file any documentary evidence in order to show that the leakage was not due to their fault and it is for the consumer to maintain the service connection. No doubt the service connection had to be maintained by the consumer, however, when there is leakage necessarily, it is for the electricity department that had to see that no such untoward incident occurs. The deceased was an illiterate farm servant and while working in the farm came into contact with live wire and electrocuted. The negligence can be attributed to the electricity department or its employees for not properly maintaining the electricity lines properly. The Supreme Court in M.P.ELECTRICITY BOARD v. SHAIL KUMARI AND OTHERS in 2002(2) SCC 162 and the National Commission in KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD., & ANR. v. SMT.SHARAVVA & ORS. reported in III (2002) CPJ 269 (NC) opined that improper maintenance of the electric installation and lines carrying the electric energy would amount to deficiency in service, in case of death due to electrocution the liability can be fixed against the electricity board.
Undoubtedly the deceased was a farm servant, he was aged 40 years. If an amount of Rs.2,000/- per month is reckoned as his income, his annual income would be Rs.24,000/- and if 1/3rd is deducted towards his personal expenses it would come to Rs.16,000/- and since his age was 40, if the appropriate multiplier of ‘15’ is applied, it would come to more than the compensation awarded by the District Forum. Considering the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the compensation that was awarded is moderate and the order needs no interference. We do not see any merits in this appeal.
In the result this appeal is dismissed. No costs.
The counsel for the appellant deposited Rs.1,75,000/- by way of D.D. bearing No.774836 dt.13/10/2010 and also deposited Rs.25,000/- at the time of preferring the appeal. The registry is directed to transmit the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the District Forum, Warangal, in order to enable the complainant to withdraw the same.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.20-10-2010
