BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:23/2021

DATED: 27^th  July 2022

PRESENT: -     Sri. M.I.SHIGLI. B.A., LL.M.,       PRESIDENT

                        Sri. G. SREEPATHI, B.COM., LL.B., MEMBER         

                        Smt. B.H. YASHODA.    B.A., LL.B., LADY MEMBER

:ORDER:

Sri. M.I.SHIGLI. B.A., LL.M., PRESIDENT  

The present complaint is filed U/s 35 of CP Act 2019 against the OPs claiming compensation of Rs.18,50,000/- and other incident at claims, on the happening of event dated 01/06/2020 at about 2.30 pm hours on account of power fluctuations, his household utensils were gutted and complainant sustained grievous injuries  caused by electrocution. 

BRIEF FACTS OF CASE:

1. That on 01/06/2020 at about 2:30 pm. When the complainant was in his house, the electrical home appliances caught fire all of a sudden and when the complainant tried to put of fuse, got electrocuted and sustained, injuries to his, right hand shoulders and left leg as well.

2. He is stated to have been shifted to Maradihalli PHC for first Aid treatment and thereafter to Bapuji Hospital Davanagere. The father of the complainant is said to have lodged complaint subsequently

3.  It is alleged that, the incident has happened due to electrical line from Hanumali passing through Dogganal village and said line was cut down & fell on the ground, as a result of which in Dogganal village 11 LT installations met with electrical accident etc.,

It’s further alleged that, much of his home appliances like Fridge, TV sets, Fans, and other electrical utensils were gutted in fire. All these were burnt and all out of sheer negligence and failure on the past of OP in taking precautions and not taking safety measures.

4. It’s stated that, the complainant was admitted in Bapuji Hospital Davanagere as inpatient between 01/06/2019 and 14/06/2019. It is further stated that he is taking further treatment with intermittent gap of 15 days in the same hospital and in some Pvt. Hospitals too. It’s stated that due to electrical shock his right hand is badly affected and he is not able to fold it, resulting for total partial disablement.  It is stated that, on account of these happenings, he has lost his earing capacity, and is not able to manage his family expenses.

5. The complaint has sought for a total compensation of Rs.18,50,000/- under different heads and has sought before this commission for passing an order of direction against OPs to pay the same with 12% interest till its  realization.

6.   The OPs on service of notice of this complaint, made their appearance through their counsel, and OP No.3 chose to file its version, which is adopted by OPs No.1, 2 and 4. The OPs have seriously disputed the maintainability of complaint, as the dispute does not fall within the purview of CP Act 2019.  Though the tone and tenure of OPs objection is denial, it is seen that the averments at para 9 and 14 of their version have categorically admitted the happening of the incident on 01/06/2019 at 2.30.pm and have stated that “……… this accident is due to unnatural happenings and there is no negligency or deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  

7. Its furthers stated by OPs that the Superintend of Engineer, BESCOM, Davanagere has sanctioned Rs.29,260/- vide order dated 11/10/2019, the complainant has accepted this amount of Rs.29,260/- as full and final settlement of all claims, and hence prayed to dismiss the complainant.

8. On the case being set for evidence, both parties have lead their respective evidence and got marked some documents on their behalf. Both counsels have submitted their oral and written arguments to substantiate their respective stand.

9. Having heard the submissions of both parties an materials on record the following points arise for our consideration Viz.,

i) Whether the complainant prove deficiency of service on the past    

    of OPs and consequently entitled to claim compensation of
          Rs. 18,50,000/-

ii) What is order?

10. We shall not be oblivious of the fact that, though the parties to the litigation are at loggerheads in respect of making good the loss, occurred on 01/06/2020, there is consensus as to the unexpected,   event, leading to the damage to men and material of dogganal Village of  Holalkere Taluk.

11. The document at Ex.B-1 produced by the OP-1 to 4 it self is sufficient narrating this fact. Added this our attention is drawn para 9  and at para 13 of the version filed by the OPs, which is the implicit admission on the part of the OPs. Howerver it is their contention, that, the event is “due to natural calamity” and “it is noticed that, the CFR relay was not tripped and this accident is due to unnatural happenings, and there is no negligency or deficiency of service  on the part of opposite parties’’

12. The analysis of the facts and figures pleaded and produced, synthesise the theory, that how best the grievance could be ameliorated. The complainant has brought to the notice of this commission, the much needed documentary evidence by production of Ex.A-1 to A-19. And in order to fortify the contention of the complainant a medical practitioner by name Dr. Gururaja Meravanigi. Who assessed has stated disability on 03/08/2021. He has been examined as PW-2,

It is to be noticed that, the complainant was made to encounter unexpected expenses owing to his electrical shock No doubt, that the tramours  of shock have travelled long way in the life of the complainant. But we cant loose sight of the fact that it’s not the OPs neglect that knocked him, to the doors of hospital, and thereby put him to incur the heavy expenses.

13. Though the complainant has asserted  in his complaint that the shock was due to negligent act of the OPs but, he has not pleaded in his complaint, that which act of the OPs amount to negligence, and which gives right to claim compensation for the actionable wrong.

14. The complainant has given the details of heads under which he claims a huge amount of compensation at para 5 (a) to the extent  of
Rs. 18,50,000/- But while arguing his case the complainant has furnished memo of calculation ( which dates back to 24/12/2021) where on all counts he has calculated the entire claim to Rs.12,04,000/-

15. It appears from the above referred Memo of Calculation is that is like a claim under the workmens compensation Act or 166 of M.V. Act. We do not concede the stand of counsel for complainant while canvassing his theory of calculation.

At the same time our attention is all drawn towards Memo of Calculation submitted on 12/08/2021. Which is the consolidated bill for sum of Rs.74,453/- supported with all medical bill. These documents have been marked without there being any objections by the OPs. Hence the genuineness of these documents is not shrouded with suspicion . In our considered opinion, this calculation of Rs.74,543/- supported with the bills cannot be brushed aside.

16. An interesting part of the submission of the counsel for the OPs that, the complainant has received the compensation amount of Rs.33,260/- and Rs. 4,000/- for the personal and property loss  & respectively. The bills marked at Ex.A6 (Consisting of 30 bills) marked without any objection. And these bills are prior to the date of execution of Ex.B-9 to B-12 which are said to be bonds for having received by complainant towards full and final settlement of claim. The counsel for complainant argued that these documents came into existence at later point of time. It’s noticed that Ex.B-10 and B-12 are separate sheets annexed to Ex.B9 and B-11 and are undated. And counsel for complainant argued that these are hushed up documents and cannot preclude the complainant from claiming the compensation to which he is legally entitled to. However we find some forces in his submission, for the simple reason that Ex.B-9 and Ex.B-11 are true copies of the non-judicial bond dated 04/11/2019 But Ex.B-10 and B-12 are annexed papers to Ex.B-9 and B-11 respectively which do not bear any date and are not paginated consecutively. In view of the same we are of the opinion that, alleged execution of documents of Ex.B-9 to Ex.B12 con’t be accepted.

17. The counsel for the Ops has relied upon an authority reported in 2020 (3) CPR 64 NC. Wherein a reference is made to the ratio. In United India Insurance Company Vs Ajmer Singh 1999 (6) SCC 400. Its observed therein as “…..However (Sic so) where such discharge voucher proved to have been obtained under any of the suspicious circumstances noted herein above, the Tribunal or the commission would be justified in granting the appropriate relief under the circumstances as noted earlier. The consumer Disputes Redressal Forums and Commissions constituted under the Act shall also have the power to fasten liability against the insurance company not with standing the issuance of discharge voucher”.

   The learned counsel for OP has cited a similar authority reported on 2014 NCJ 277 (HC) This also force us to infer a fact that, and the above refused authority con’t be applied here on the premise that the execution, of-discharge voucher is itself seriously disputed by the complainant and OP has failed to prove its due execution.

18. Coming back to the evidentiary value of PW2. Dr. Gururaja Meravanigi who has issued Ex.A-7, the disability certificate, on examination of complainant, PW-2 has opinioned that, patient has permanent disability of 40% and he has also issued Ex.A-9 the probable cost of surgery to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-. But the complainant has not produced any estimate/ actual bills that he has to incurs. Under the circumstance we are unable accept the contention of the complainant. However we are equipped with Ex.A-14, the Memo of Calculation of Medical bills, supported with original bills, we can assess the actual incurring of expenses by the complainant.

In view of the above facts and circumstance there is no need to suspect the version of complainant. And the OPs are legally bound to disburse, these expenses, which is not disputed.

We are of the considered opinion that, the OPs shall be bound to reimburse these expenses, subtracting the compensation amount which is already disbursed i.e. 

74,453

      -33260    (As per Ex.B-8)

41,193

This balance amount of Rs.41,193/- carries 12% interest from the date of petition till its realization.

Hence. For the detailed reasons we proceed to pass the following

::ORDER::

        The complaint filed by the complainant U/s.35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 is Partly allowed.

The OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.41,193/- with 12 % interest from the date of petition within 30 days from the date of this  order.

        Communicate the order to parties.

(Typed directly on the computer to the dictation given to stenographer, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced by us on  27^th  July  2022.)

LADY MEMBER                   MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

PW-1:- Sri.Nagaraja.N S/o Narappa.

PW-2:- Dr. Gururaja Meravanigi

Witnesses  examined on behalf of opponents:

DW-1 to 4 :- C. Nagarajappa S/o Chandrappa,

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

Documents marked on behalf of opponents:

LADY MEMBER                   MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

GM