BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC.24/11.
THIS THE 30th DAY OF AUGUST 2011.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANT :- Smt. B. Parvathi W/o. Late Sathyanarayan @
Sathyanarayan, Age: years, Occ: Household, R/o. Sathyavathi Camp, Gorebal Circle, Tq. Sindhanoor Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. The Assistant Executive Engineer, (Ele) O&M Sub Division GESCOM, Sindhanoor.
2. The Managing Director, GESCOM, Gulbarga.
CLAIM : For award Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for
mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings with other relief’s for the death of one Late B. Satyanarayan S/o. Apparao by electrocution
Date of institution :- 08-04-11.
Notice served :- 27-04-11.
Date of disposal :- 30-08-11.
Complainant represented by Sri. T.M. Swamy, Advocate.
Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 represented by Sri. B.P.H., Advocate.
-----
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri.Gururaj, Member:-
The complainant filed this complaint against opposites 1 & 2 officers GESCOM, Sindhanoor, Dist; Raichur & Gulbarga U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to award a compensation amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of death to till realization of the full amount and to award Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of the proceedings with other relief’s for the death of one Late B. Satyanarayan S/o. Apparao by electrocution.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, one Late B. Satyanarayan S/o. Apparao who is the husband of complainant, on 01-01-2010 at about 12:30 PM, while he was busy along with his son in paddy plantation, in the crop wise lease based land of one Kalyanamma W/o. Chennappa and Basanguda S/o. Chennappa situated at Gorebal village limits, Tq. Sindhanoor and at that time when he was moving on small bunds in the said land where the electricity wire were fallen near the pump house without having knowledge that, there is a passing of electricity and thereby he suddenly came into contact of electricity through finger of left leg and fallen on the said wires and died on the spot due to heavy electrocution.
Further it is the case of the complainant that, in the year 2009 from 29-09-09 to 04-10-09 there was a heavy flood in the northern Karnataka including Sindhanoor Tq. also and for that, flood the pump house where the pump set was installed was fallen on the electrical wires. The said initiation was provided by late Satyanarayana to said Basangouda the owner of the land who in turn intimated the same to one Chandrashekhar Vaidhya i.e, J.E. of GESCOM and to one line man by name Nagesh. Thereafter, said GESCOM employees have told that, electricity has been disconnected to said fallen wires but they neither removed the said wires which were fallen on small bunds in the said lands nor got repaired in-spite of intimation and request made by the late Satyaynaraya and Basangouda. For that, reason the death of B.Satyanayarana was caused. The family members of the complainant were left high hand dry and facing hardship to live their livelihood day to day that are dependent on deceased. This is nothing but a deficiency in service and negligence on the part of opposite for which the complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the death of her bread winner and they have also sought other reliefs as noted in this complaint.
3. After service of the notices the opposite No-1 & 2 have appeared through their counsel. The opposite No-1 has filed written version and same has been adopted by the opposite No-2 through memo dt. 17-05-2011. The opposites in their written version contended that, there is no relationship of consumer between the victim or beneficiary as the victim is not the registered consumer of the opposites, the matter involved in the present complaint requires lot of evidence as required to be lead before the Civil Court.
Further, by denying the family position of the Kalyanamma and her son Basangouda and Gorebal as their residence, about owning of irrigated lands within Gorebal limits, about installation of pump sets in their land by having electricity connection from opposites through connection No. GIP-12 Gorebal and about the cultivation of land on crop wise lease basis by late B.Satyanarayana S/o. Apparao i.e, husband of the complainant, it is contended that, the cultivation of the land on lease basis is prohibited by the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, hence it is against the law and the said fact is to be determined by the land tribunal and there is no relationship of consumer between the decease and the opposites.
Further it is denied about the rainfall from 29-09-09 to 04-09-09 and heavy flood in North Karnataka including Sindhanoor Tq., the pump set which was installed was fallen on electrical wire and same was intimated to the Chandrashekar Vaidhya, J.E. and line man of GESCOM and same was not repaired in-spite of intimation and request. Further it is also denied that, on 01-01-10 at about 12:30 PM Satyanarayana was busy in planting the paddy in the said land along with his son Srinivas and came in contact with the electric wire and died on the spot.
Further it is contended that, the alleged incident took place due to negligence act of B.Satyanarayana himself, he himself invited the incident knowing fully well with regard falling of electric poles due to heavy alleged flood and rains and as such the complainant is not entitled for any compensation. There is no negligence on the part of the opposites in maintaining electricity supply and for that, the present opposites are not responsible for the alleged incident. The alleged claim of compensation is excessive, exorbitant and without any base. Hence it was prayed for to dismissal of the complaint among other grounds.
4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant proves that, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposites, as alleged?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s as prayed in her complaint.
3. What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the affirmative.
(2) In the affirmative.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1.:-
6. To prove the case of complainant affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1, affidavit-evidence of one V.Satyanarayana S/o. Subbarao and Basangouda S/o. Late Chennappa has been filed in support of the complaint case, they have noted as PW-2 & PW-3 respectively. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele) (O&M) ie., opposite No-1 was filed, he was noted as RW.1. No documents have been filed on behalf of opposites.
7. It is the case of the complainant that, her husband late B.Satyanarayana was died due to electrocution in the land of one Kalyanamma and Basangouda at the time of paddy plantation. The said incident took place when the live wires were fallen on the mud bund of the said land and the deceased Satyanarayana came into contact with them and died. Before the death of the said Satyanarayana he and Basangouda were informed about the fallen of the live wires but the opposites were neglected and for that reason he died. In support of her case the complainant has field death certificate of B.Satyanarayana same as marked as Ex.P-2. Further, she has also filed police documents i.e, FIR along with complaint, charge sheet, statement of V.Satyanarayana S/o. Subbarao, Smt. Parvathi i.e, complainant and Basangouda S/o. Chennappa, PME Report issued by General Hospital, Sindhanoor they are all marked as Ex.P-4 to Ex.P-9 respectively. It is the case of the opposites that, there was no negligence on their part about the death of B.Satyanarayana. On the other hand, it is the negligence on the part of deceased B.Satyanarayana himself. Further they have also contended that, the case of the complainant is not maintainable since there was no relation as consumer between the deceased B.Satyanarayana and GESCOM and as per the Land Reforms Act, the alleged lease is prohibited one. There was also no information about the fallen of the live wires either by the deceased Satyanarayana and Basangouda.
On perusal of the Ex.P-2 death certificate, Ex.P-4 FIR, Ex.P-5 complaint, and Ex.P-9 PME Report, it appears that, the husband of the complainant was died on 01-01-2010 acute myocardial infarction due to electrocution. From this, it is very clear that, the late B.Satyanarayana was died on 01-02-2010 due to electrocution as contended by the complainant in her complaint. It is worthwhile to note here that, though the opposites have denied this fact in earlier paras of their written version, but they have admitted about the death of the husband of the complainant in para No-9 at 12th line of their written statement. In the said para the opposites have contended that, “the alleged incident took place due to negligent act of B.Satyaranarayana himself, he himself invited the incident knowing fully well with regard falling of electric poles due to heavy alleged flood and rains”. This version of the opposites clearly supports the case of the complainant to the extent of death of the late B.Satyanarayana i.e, the husband of the complainant due to electrocution by the fallen of electrical wires due to heavy rain and flood.
8. The opposites in their written version contended that, they are totally unaware about the cultivation of the land of one Smt. Kalyanamma W/o. Chennappa and Basangouda S/o. Chennappa on the crop wise lease basis by the late B.Satyanarayana i.e, husband of the complainant, the said land was irrigated by using electric pump set by getting electricity connection through connection No. GIP 12 and on 01-01-2010 at abut 12:30 PM late B.Satyanarayana was planting paddy plants in the said land. But the complainant in support of her case, she has filed affidavit-evidence of one V.Satyanarayana S/o. Subbaraon R/o. Satyavathi Camp, Basangouda S/o. late Chennappa R/o. Gorebal village who have noted as PW-2 & PW-3 and one electricity bill for the month of July pertaining to GIP-12 marked as Ex.P-1. The affidavit-evidence of V.Satyanrayana discloses that, he is the permanent R/o. Satyavathi Camp wherein the complainant is residing. Further, he has also categorically deposed that, the late V.Satyanrayana was cultivating the land of one Kalyanamma and Basangouda and on 01-01-2010 the said B.Satyanarayana i.e, the husband of the complainant was died due to electrocution. Further it was also stated by him that, about the fallen of the wires, there was intimation to the opposites officers but the officers were failed to reinstall the fallen wires and for that reasons the husband of the complainant was died. Further, the affidavit-evidence of PW-3 Basangouda clearly speaks about the cultivation of the land by B.Satyanarayana i.e, husband of the complainant on crop wise lease basis and his death. These two evidences cannot be discarded because the PW-2 is the resident of Satyavathi Camp where the deceased was residing and the evidence of PW-2 who is the actual owner of the land who has given it to the husband of the complainant on lease. It is worthwhile to note here that, opposites neither challenged the evidence of the PW-2 and PW-3 by filing any interrogatories nor they have lead any evidence of any persons of the same locality to show that, deceased B.Satyanarayana was cultivating the land on that day and at the time of the incident and there was no death of the deceased as alleged in the complaint. Further Ex.P-1 the electricity bill filed by the complainant is clearly speaks about the collection of electricity for the pump set pertaining to the land of one Kalyanamma through GIP-12 /1/701. Further It is worthwhile to note here that, though the opposites are categorically denied about the supply of electricity to the pump set of the one Kalyanamma/ Basangouda, they have not filed any piece of evidence to show that, the owner of the land i.e, Kalyanamma/Basangouda have illegally got connected the pump set. Hence in the absence of such evidence by the opposite and in support of the electricity bill produced by the complainant it is very clear that, the opposites have supplied a power supply to the land of Kalyamanna/ Chennappa. Therefore the contention of the opposites in this regard holds no good.
9. The opposites in their written version further mainly contended that, the giving of land to the husband of the complainant on lease basis is totally illegal as per the Land Reforms Act. Hence the complaint is not maintainable. But this objection raised by the opposite is not sustainable because in our view, this Forum is fit to consider only regarding the negligence and deficiency in services deceased was cultivated the land on that day at that time and we are not deciding any issue as regards to the legality lease cultivation or otherwise. The objection raised by the opposites is not acceptable from this Forum hence we have rejected the same.
10. Further it is the case of the opposite that, the complainant/ late B.Satyanarayan is not the beneficiary and there was no relation as consumer between the complainant/late B.Satyanarayana and the opposite, hence the complaint is not maintainable. But on perusal of the pleadings of the parties, and documents it appears that, the deceased B.Satyanarayana husband of the complainant was cultivating the land on crop wise lease basis. He was cultivating the land with the help of IP set which has been connected by the opposite in the name of owner of the land. No doubt, the late B.Satyanarayana was not the consumer as contended by the opposite. The PW-3 Basangouda in his affidavit-evidence specifically deposed that, the said land being their joint family land because of their inability to cultivate was let out to decease B.Satyanarayana on crop wise lease basis. This is clearly goes to show that, the husband of the complainant was cultivating the said land with the consent of the owner and using the electricity for his cultivation. Under these circumstances, the contention of the opposite in this regard cannot be accepted.
11. The counsel for the complainant in support of her case she has submitted rulings cited in: III (2009) CPJ 5 (SC), The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the present ruling categorically discussed about the term consumer, person, service, deficiency. The said discussion and dictum laid down under the said ruling is amply applicable to the present case of the complainant. Hence we have considered the same.
Viewing from all angles on facts and evidence placed on record we have come to the conclusion that the complainant has proved her case as deficiency in service on the part of the opposites. Hence we have answered Point No-1 in affirmative.
POINT NO.2:-
12. Admittedly the deceased B.Satyanarayana is aged about Basamma W/o. Lingappa was aged about (45) years as per Identity Card issued by Election Commission of India, produced at Ex.P-3(1) he died leaving behind complainant and his son.
13. The learned advocate for complainant submitted following rulings to follow the principles of the said rulings in deciding the quantum of compensation in this case-
1. IV 2008 CPJ 332 Parimala Devi & Others V/s. Dakshini Hariyana Bijili Vitran Nigam Ltd., and another.
2. 2010 CTJ 626 (CP) (NCDRC) of Hon’ble National Commission.
3. 2009 (3) Civil Law Journal 482 SC Smt. Sarla Verma & Others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation & Others.
14. Further he requested us to follow multiplier method in assessing quantum of compensation amount as observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court.
15. The learned advocate for opposites submitted that, the facts of the rulings referred above are not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand and thereby requested us not to take note of the above said rulings.
16. We have gone through the principles of the said rulings and we have also considered the facts and circumstances of the present case and of the opinion that, there are no evidences before us to assess the loss of future income, status of the family and other related factors, under such circumstances, we have taken note of the entire case of the complainant and came to a conclusion that the complainant is entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- as a compensation amount due to negligence of these opposites.
17. As regards to the deficiency in service is concerned, complainant is entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 5,000/- as a special case, from the opposites. In the similar way the complainant is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards cost of litigation. The complainants are also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount.
POINT NO.3:-
18. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 to 3, we proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost.
The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 2,58,000/- from opposites
The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 2,58,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount from opposites.
Opposites are hereby granted one month time to make the above payment from the date of this judgment.
Intimate the parties accordingly.
Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 30-08-11)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
