Andhra Pradesh

Nellore

CC/30/2014

Pakala Dileep kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Superintendant Engineer APSPDC Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

V.Venkatesh

28 Sep 2015

ORDER

Date of Filing     :15-02-2014

                                                                                                Date of Disposal:28-09-2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM:NELLORE

Monday, this the 28^th  day of   September, 2015

 

PRESENT: Sri M. Subbarayudu Naidu, B.Com.,B.L.,LL.M.,President(FAC) & Member                             

                   Sri N.S. Kumara Swamy, B.Sc.,LL.B., Member.

 

C.C.No.30/2014

 

Pakala Dileep Kumar, being minor,

Represented by his father / guardian:Pakala Sai Prasad,

Hindu, Aged about 11 years, Studying VI the class,

Resident of 4/777,

Usmansahebpet, Nellore City, Nellore.                                               ..… Complainant          

 

                                                                           Vs.

 

1.	Superintendent of Engineering, Andhra Pradesh State Power Distribution    Company Limited, Vidyuth  Bhavan, Current Office, Near Raja Rajaeswari Temple, Dargamita, Nellore
2.	Assistant Engineer, Sub-Station, A.P.S.P.D.C.L., Stonehousepet, Nellore.                                  ..…Opposite parties

                                                              .  

            This complaint coming on 14-09-2015 before us for hearing in the presence of                Sri V. Venkatesh,advocate for the complainants and                                                                     Sri K. Padmanabhaiah, advocate for the opposite parties  and having stood over for consideration till this day and this Forum made the following:

 

ORDER

(ORDER BY  Sri N.KUMARA SWAMY, MEMBER (F.A.C.)

 

            The brief averments of the complaint are that  complainant  is the son of  Pakala Sai Prasad, aged about 11 years studying 6^th class, represented by his father / guardian residing in 4/777, Usmansahebpet, Nellore City, Nellore.  It is further averred  that one Mr.M. Ram Mohan Rao, the owner of house bearing door No.4/776 situated at Usmansahebpet, Nellore in which house is having 1^st floor.  The complainant and his parents are residing  by the side of said house  and there is an electrical pole consisting of electrical wires situated  by the side of house of said Rammohan Rao which was access to any person to touch the said electrical wire.  The said Rammohan Rao made several requests and a complaint was also lodged to the opposite parties about the lower level of the electrical wires and request them to remove the electrical pole which are very lower level, but the opposite parties  did not remove the said electrical wires.

 

            2.         It is further averred in the complaint that the complainant is playing with other children in the 1^st floor of the above said house on 15-03-2013 at about 5 p.m. and  while playing the complainant picked up a iron rod  and raised his hand which touched the electrical wires  and due to touch of the said electrical wire current passed through the iron rod  and due to which  the complainant received grievous injuries.  Immediately the complainant’s father admitted the complainant in Narayana Hospital,Nellore and during the course of treatment the doctor concerned removed two legs and right hand.  The complainant further submit that though the owner of the said house made several requests, the opposite parties have not taken any steps to rectify the above said defect and hence there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  As such the opposite parties are bound to pay compensation Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant for gross negligence and deficiency of service on their part.  Due to the removal of two legs and right hand, the life of the minor complainant has become miserable and cannot do anything in future  and his bright future also spoiled. For each and everything  the complainant has to depend on others . The complainant and his parents are suffering  a lot both mentally and physically.  In view of the above said accident took place  for the gross negligence of the opposite parties, the opposite parties are liable for payment of compensation of Rs.,10,00,000/- as well as damages of Rs.1,00,000/- and costs of Rs.5,000/-.  Hence, the complaint.

 

            3.         The 1^st opposite party filed adoption memo adopting the counter / written version  of 2^nd opposite party and in all material particulars.

 

            4.         The opposite parties filed counter / written version resisting the complaint averments  except  admitting that  complainant met with an accident  due to electrocution.

 

            5.         It is further contended that  the high tension electricity lines are passing since 70 years and without the permission of the opposite parties, the complainant constructed his house under the said high tension lines. It is also further contended that the complainant never applied to the opposite parties either for shifting of lines or for arranging shock proof  plastic tubes to the said high tension lines, which are passing over the complainant’s house for the last 70 years. It is also further contended that the opposite parties have been instructing all consumers to shift their residences under the said high tension lines to some other safety place  cautioning them about the danger due to that high tension lines.  The opposite parties further contended that if the complainant would have filed any petition for shifting of lines after paying necessary alignment charges, the alleged accident  would have been avoided.  It is further submitted that due to the parents negligence, the minor son P. Dileep Kumar met with the accident  while playing on the roof of the building with kite without observing H.T. lines which are passing  and there is no willful default on the part of the opposite parties for the injuries sustained to the minor complainant.  Hence, the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the parents and opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation as there is no deficiency of service on their part.  Hence, the complaint may be dismissed without costs.

 

            6.         The point for determination would be for consideration is :

 

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties if so, 

 whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as  prayed for?

2)          To what relief?

 

            7.         In support of their contentions, both parties  filed their evidence on affidavits.  Complainant filed evidence on affidavit as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A1 to A9.  On the other hand, the opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit as R.W.1 and no exhibits marked on their behalf .   Both parties filed written arguments.  Heard on both sides.

 

            8.         POINT No.1: It is an admitted fact that the complainant namely Pakala Dileep Kumar,  who is minor in this case met with an accident due to the touching of high tension electrical wire while he was playing with kite on the roof of the complainant.

 

            9.         The questioned  that falls for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  One Sri.M. Ram Mohan Rao, is the owner of house bearing door No.4/776 situated at  Usmansahebpet, Nellore Town.  The said house consists of 1^st floor, the victim and his family are residents of a house adjoining to the said house.  The said house is provided with service connection. There is an electrical pole situated by the side of house of Ram Mohan Rao.  Electrical wires are passing on the 1^st floor of the said Ram Mohan Rao.  The opposite parties are not disputing about electrical wires passing from the pole situated by the side of the house of the said Ram Mohan Rao.  The opposite parties  came forward with a contention that  the said Mr.Ram Mohan Rao constructed his house under high tension wires without permission  from the  department and further contended that they never applied to their department either for shifting of lines or  arranging shock proof of plastic tubes to the said high tension lines which are passing over the said  Ram Mohan Rao house.  Further according to  O.Ps. the department has been instructing to shift their residences, who are  residing under high tension lines  to some other  safety places cautioning them about the danger  due to  high tension lines.  Had the said  Ram Mohan Rao sent a petition for shifting the lines after paying the necessary alignment charges, the accident could have been avoided.  The Opposite parties do not dispute  about minor P. Dileep Kumar met with an accident  due to coming into contact with live high tension lines.   They throw the blame on the parents of the minor stating that they never took any precautions for avoiding accidents  and accident took place due to the negligence of the parents of the injured boy and therefore the Opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation as there is no any deficiency of service on their part.

 

            10.       Several contentions raised by the opposite parties are not entitled for acceptance for the following reasons.  The powers and  duties of electricity board and their authorities are governed by the provisions of Indian Electricity Act and Electricity Supply Act.  The rules made under the said Act mandate that all the electric supply  lines  and appratus shall be installed protected  and maintained in a way to ensure safety of human beings and animals and properties.  Therefore, the authority of electrical board are bound by law to provide all safety measures  and to prevent  untoward incidents an account of the existence of the electrical supply lines.  Therefore, the contention of the Opposite parties that the owner of the building never applied to their department either for shifting lines  or for arranging shock proof plastic tubes to the H.T. lines  are not accepted.  The department is duty bound  either to shift H.T. lines or to provide shock proof plastic tubes covering the H.T. lines.  In the instant case, no such shock proof plastic tubes  arranged for the H.T. lines preventing  any  untoward incident.  Except the contentions of chief affidavit of R.W.1, there is no documentary proof placed by the Opposite parties about the department instructing  the consumers to shift the residences to safety places cautioning about the danger due to H.T. lines.  Assuming for a moment what is contented by the  opposite parties were to be true, was the department  left with no other alternations,  they had every alternative method of avoiding untoward incident.  The provisions of Indian Electricity Act provide enough powers to the authorities for removal of any construction  dangerous to the electrical installations  and power extent  even to effect demolition and removal of existing construction. If really  the residence of locality failed to shift their residences, who are residing under the H.T.  lines to some other safety places  cautioning them about the danger due to H.T. lines , the department should have taken for removal of the construction of the building coming under the H.T. lines.  No such action was taken by the department.  Therefore, there was any amount of inaction on the part of authorities of Opposite parties in taking action to avoid the complications arising out of existing of  live H.T. lines.

 

            11.       The electricity board did not take any action to ensure that none of their installations posed a threat  to any person or  public.  The electricity board did not make any inch to shift  electrical H.T. lines from residential locality inspite of representation made by the Ram Mohanrao, which is Ex.A2.    It is an admitted fact that P. Dileep Kumar, a minor boy aged 11 years, while playing with kite came into contact with H.T. lines and was electrocuted   resulting  burn injuries after prolonged treatment two legs upto ankle and right hand were amputated. On account of the said accident resulting in removal of two legs and right hand, the minor complainant has become permanently disabled.  Without the help of others, the minor cannot even attend to normal requirement of  life.  The unfortunate accident spoiled the bright future of minor complainant.  This Forum is not convinced with the contentions of Opposite parties that  the accident occurred due to the negligence of parents of minor complainant.  Electricity Board  duty of care shall extend to provide for safety mechanism that will dispel  harm even for an act of  child.  Accident do take place  involving children.  The interest of minor children have to be protected by the opposites parties who have controlled over the device which have contributed to the harm on by exercise of adequate care. The electricity board was appraised of the danger that was involved in the locality of  its electrical installations.  The Opposite parties being public authorities owes a duty to the public that it acts or installations  are such that they do not cause any danger to the life and to the property of its citizens.  The ouns is on the Opposite parties that even an unwary  or negligent child does not come harm by their installations in a public place.  Indeed  the expression of a negligent child should itself be discarded for a child is entitled to such act as it might indulge in when it is not the age of discretion.

 

12.       In support of the averments in the pleadings, the counsel for the complainant has filed the following decisions for establishing the complainants case viz.,                            1) 2013 ACJ (816),   (2)  2014 ACJ  (2168)  and   (3)  2014  ACJ (1821). The above said decisions are squarely applicable  in the instant case.

 

            13.       In the present case, the unfortunate accident occurred due to the failure of the Opposite parties in not proving the safety measures in protecting  an innocent boy who came  into contact with live wires.  Therefore, it can be held that accident was a direct result of inaction, negligence and violation of statutory rules by the Opposite parties which amounts to deficiency  in service on the part of the Opposite parties  They are bound to provide compensation to the minor complainant.

 

            14.       Now the next question  that falls for consideration is has to the quantum of  compensation which the minor complainant is entitled.  From the material on the record, it is very much clear that after prolonged treatment two legs and right hand of the minor  were removed.  This aspect is very much clear from Ex.A8.  From the discharge summary, it is clear that  minor complainant has suffered permanent disability.  The complainant has not produced any bills to evident that the expenditure involved in the treatment given to him in the Narayana Hospital. It appears that the parents of the complainant spent enormous amounts for providing treatment to the minor complainant as treatment was given in a corporate hospital i.e., Narayana Hospital.  The minor boy aged is eleven  years, for the rest of his life  he has to depend on others for his survival.  Further, he requires an attendant permanently to lookafter for his comforts.  Much needy expenditure  is being involved during the entirety of his life.  The complainant claimed Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation, Rs.1,00,000/- towards  damages and Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

 

            15.       On account of unfortunate accident, the minor complainant lost of power of earning. This Forum feels that compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under all heads would be reasonable compensation to which the minor complainant would be entitled.  The claim for interest at 24% cannot be awarded.  Interest at  9% can be awarded on the amount of Rs.10,00,000/- from the date of complaint till the date of payment.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

 

16.    POINT No.2:  In the result, the complaint  is partly allowed, directing the opposite parties to pay the compensation amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only)  with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e., dated 15-02-2014 till the date of payment  to the  minor complainant.  On such deposit of compensation amount, the same shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of minor complainant namely Pakala Dileep Kumar  in any Nationalized Bank until  the minor complainant attains the majority.  The next friend of the minor i.e., father of the complainant is permitted to draw the monthly interest for the maintenance of minor complainant.  The opposite parties are also further directed to pay the costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant.    

 

Typed to the dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by us in the open  Forum, this the  28^th day of  September, 2015.

 

 

                 Sd/-                                                                                            Sd/-

           MEMBER                                                                               PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

                                                APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined for the complainants

 

P.W.1  -

02-12-2014

Sri Pakala Sai Prasad, S/o.Late Kondaiah, Nellore (Chief Affidavit filed)

 

Witnesses Examined for the opposite parties

 

R.W.1  -

01-08-2014

Sri Ch. Balasubramanyam, S/o.Satyanarayana, Working as Assistant Engineer, APSPDCL Limited, Nellore (Proof Affidavit filed)

 

                             EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE COMPLAINANTS

 

Ex.A1  -	-	One electricity bill in service No.078664 in favour of              S. Srinivasulu for Rs.427/- issued by the opposite parties.
Ex.A2  -	06-02-2013	Photocopy of letter from M. Ram Mohan Rao to the  opposite party No.2.
Ex.A3  -	-	Two photographs.
Ex.A4  -	-	One D.V.D.
Ex.A5  -	06-04-2013	Photocopy of Discharge Summar in favour of  Pakala Dileep Kumar issued by Narayana Medical College Hospital, Nellore
Ex.A6  -	15-05-2013	Out Patient Card  in favour of  Dileep Kumar Pakala issued by  Dr.G. Amar Raghunarayana, Narayana General Hospital, Nellore.
Ex.A7  -	-	Photocopy of  Aadhar card No.6196 1086 4190 in favour of Pakala Dileep Kumar issued by  Unique Identification Authority of India, Government of India.
Ex.A8  -	-	One photograph.
Ex.A9  -	-	Photocopy of Temporary Household Card No.RAP098200344151 in favour of  complainants Family.

 

                         EXHIBITS MARKED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-Nil-

 

 

                                                                                                              

                                                                                                                       Id/-

                                                                                                         PRESIDENT(F.A.C.)

 

Copies to:

 

1.	Sri V. Venkatesh, Advocate, 16-3-272, Rmalingapuram, Behind Ganji Khana    Municipal School, Nellore.
2.	Sri K. Padmanabhaiah, Advocate, “Sreerama Nilayam”, 1st street, 23/1301, Tekkemitta, Nellore-3.

 

Date when free copy was issued: