This complaint is coming before us for hearing, in the presence of Sri. G. Harender Reddy, Advocate for Opposite parties No.1 to 3; and complainant appeared in-person; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing and having stood over for consideration this Forum passed the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Smt.V.Vijaya Rekha, Member)

This complaint is filed under section 12(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

2.      The brief facts as mentioned in the complaint are that the complainant is a small farmer, having electric service connection vide service connection No.439 to his agricultural pump set.  On 20-09-2007 at about 4:00 PM the main electric live wire, leading from transformer to poles was snapped and fell on his son by name Marikanti Kishore Kumar, while making rounds in their cotton field.  After hearing cries of the complainant, the nearby farmers reached the spot but he lost his breath before providing of medical aid.  Immediately, the incident was informed to the police, Mudigonda.  After registering complaint, the police conducted panchanama. As per PME, the cause of death was established as electrocution.  The personnel of opposite parties attended the spot and submitted the report to the authorities, concerned.  Accordingly, the department issued orders for payment of Rs.1,00,000/- as per orders N.O.O.(CS) MS.No.132,dt. 11-08-2007. The complainant further submitted that the said amount was paid towards ex-gratia on gracious payment but not treated as payment of adequate compensation towards loss caused to the family of complainant.  The complainant also stated that it is the responsibility of the department to conduct periodical checkups on electric poles, servers and maintain live wires properly to protect unfortunate accidents and also to protect the lives of general public.  He alleges the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in proper maintenance of live wires and in payment of adequate compensation for loss of life of his son Kishore Kumar.  Therefore, filed the present complaint by praying to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest @12% per annum from the date of death till realization and costs.  

3.      In support of his case, the complainant filed Affidavit and Exhibits A-1 to A-8 (Those were already marked by this Forum at initial stage of complaint).

4.      On being noticed, the opposite parties No.1 to 3 filed counter by denying the averments of complaint and by submitting that the present complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Further the opposite parties admitted that the non departmental fatal accident was occurred on 20-09-2007 at the cotton field of complainant, due to which, the son of complainant was electrocuted.  The cause of accident was due to technical fault, developed in the electric lines, those technical faults were not visible and not persistent for longer time.  The fault is the defect in the electric circuits, which diverts the flow of current from the intended path.  Basing on the examination of accident scenario, it was revealed that the snapping of conductor was happened all of sudden / accidentally.  After having submission of report, the CE/Zone/Warangal have sanctioned Rs.1,00,000/- towards ex-gratia on compassionate grounds, fixed by the State Government vide Memo No.CE/Z/WGL/DE(T)/ADE/D.No.1571/2007, dt. 30-01-2008. The said amount was received by the complainant on 07-03-2008  by submitting self affidavit on Rs.10/- stamp paper as full and final settlement.  The opposite parties also submitted that the present complaint was not filed within two years of accident and as such it is barred by limitation under Indian Fatal Accidents Act.  Therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs as there is no deficiency of service on their part.

5.      To prove their case, the opposite parties placed Exhibits B-1 to B-7.  (Already marked as Exhibits at initial stage of complaint).

6.      In support of his case, the complainant filed Chief Examination Affidavit and written arguments with all most all the same averments as mentioned in the complaint.  Along with Chief Examination Affidavit, the complainant filed photocopy of final report, dt. 17-10-2007  and photocopy of extract vide N.O.O. (CS) Ms.No.132, dt.11-08-2007, marked as Exhibits A-9 and A-10 respectively. The complainant referred judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd., & Anr. V/s. Parmila Devi & Ors. vide F.A.No.58/2008 and also referred the decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh in W.P. No.5536/2004 and the judgments of Hon’ble State Commission, Hyderabad in Mohammed Noorulluah Shareef & Ors. V/s. The Managing Director Cum Chairman, A.P. Transco, Hyderabad & Ors. in CC.No.9/2008 and also in P. Rajeshwari & Ors. V/s. The Chairman Cum Managing Director, A.P.S.P.D.C, Tirupathi & Ors.

7.      In view of the above submissions, now the point that arose for consideration is,

Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

Point:-       

According to the afore mentioned contentions and basing on the material on the record, it is clear that the son of complainant Marikanti Kishore Kumar, aged 23 years and student of MBA was electrocuted, while making rounds along with his father in their cotton field on 20-09-2007.  The accident was occurred due to falling of main electric live wire, proceeding from transformer to pole.  The efforts of nearby farmers could not succeed, he died on the spot due to burn injuries before providing medical aid.  After registering the complaint before Police, panchanama was conducted, final report and the P.M.E. were issued by mentioning that the cause of death as electrocution.  Basing on the spot examination report, submitted to the higher officials, the CE/Zone/Warangal sanctioned Rs.1,00,000/- towards ex-gratia on compassionate grounds on 30-01-2008.  The complainant received the said amount on 07-03-2008 towards full and final settlement by submitting self affidavit.  It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties paid only Rs.1,00,000/- towards ex-gratia amount graciously but failed to pay adequate compensation for loss caused to the family of deceased, therefore, filed the present complaint by alleging the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and by seeking to award compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- together with interest @12% per annum.  After hearing both parties, this Forum dismissed the complaint vide orders dt.20-08-2013 by holding that “the complainant received the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and executed dispatch voucher, Exhibit B-5 stating that he and his family members would not approach any Court and the amount was received towards full and final settlement.  In view of above reasons, we find that there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.”  

Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission.  In FA.No.863/2013, the Hon’ble State Commission made its findings on payment of ex-gratia and compensation as “payment of ex-gratia is on account of unusual death of the deceased and the said payment is our considered view cannot come in the way of courts directing payment of compensation etc”,  took the same into consideration, allowed the appeal, preferred by the complainant and awarded Rs.3,00,000/- together with interest @9% per annum from the date of death of son of complainant in addition to Rs.1,00,000/- towards payment of ex-gratia.  Against the same, the opposite parties/NPDCL preferred the appeal before National Commission.  After having considered, the Hon’ble National Commission remanded the matter back to this Forum through its order dated 05-08-2014 in FA.No.863/2013 and held that “.....We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the district Forum for recording its findings on the issue of limitation raised in the reply filed by the petitioner and then decide the complaint afresh.”

In view of order of Hon’ble National Commission in FA.No.863/2013, now the questions that arise for consideration are, whether the complaint is barred by limitation or not? And whether the complainant is entitled to the compensation in addition to the payment of ex-gratia?  In the case on hand, the son of complainant was died due to electric shock on 20-09-2007, after conducting spot examination, the opposite parties sanctioned Rs.1,00,000/- towards ex-gratia on 30-01-2008, the complainant received the same on      07-03-2008.  Having dissatisfied the payment of sanctioning amount, approached this Forum by filing the present complaint on 08-02-2010 by alleging the deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties, causes loss of life of his son and also in payment of adequate compensation.  According to the averments of complaint, the complainant waited for payment of adequate compensation by the opposite parties till receiving of ex-gratia amount on      07-03-2008, then only, approached this Forum by filing present complaint as there was no hope of payment of compensation except payment of ex-gratia, it was clearly mentioned in para No.6 in page No.2 of complaint, for condoning the delay of 4 months 18 days from the date of death, the complainant filed petition under section 24 (a) of C.P. Act.  The index of this Forum showing the same as under serial No.3 of 6 in part-I of material papers.  But the complaint was registered as C.C. on 16-08-2012 after receiving of orders from the Hon’ble State Commission on 06-08-2012 in FA.No.607/2010, dt. 29-03-2012, on the objection raised by this Forum with regard to how the complainant will be treated as consumer under C.P. Act.  We cannot held that the delay in filing of complaint is a fault on the part of complainant, being a small farmer, filed the complaint himself as in-person after waiting for receiving of compensation for loss, caused to his family because of death of his son.  Therefore, in our view, the facts, which leads for causing delay are genuine and those are sufficient causes for condoning the delay of 138 days from the date of death to filing of complaint on 08-02-2010 and as such, the point raised for consideration regarding the period of limitation is safely concluded in favour of complainant.

As far as the payment of compensation in addition to the payment of ex-gratia @Rs.1,00,000/- is concerned, the payment of ex-gratia is the payment done from a sense of moral obligation rather than because of any legal requirement.  Whereas, the payment of compensation is a legal obligation, awarded by the courts to redress the loss caused to the person or property.  If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into if the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy.  The liability in law as “strict liability”.  In this regard, we rely upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in M.P. Electricity Board V/s. Shail Kumar, reported in 2002 (2) ALD 4 (SC), wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court opined that “It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular was statutorily conferred on the board…”, it was also opined that, “even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risk exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the Managers of such undertakings.  The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity.  The liability case on such person is known, in law, as strict liability”. 

In the light of above decision and after having considered the circumstances as stated supra, we are of the opinion that the awarding of compensation is just and proper to compensate the family of complainant for loss of life of his son in an unfortunate event, caused from the supplier of electricity.  Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of complainant.

8.      In the result, the complaint is allowed in part by directing the opposite parties No.1 to 3 to pay Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) together with interest @9% per annum to the complainant from the date of death i.e. 20-09-2007 till realization towards compensation in addition to Rs.1,00,000/- granted towards ex-gratia.  There is no order as to costs.  

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us, in the open Forum on this the 30^th day of May, 2017.

Member                  FAC President

District Consumer Forum,

Khammam

                                      APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Complainant                                                    For Opposite party

-None-                                                                  -None-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:-                                                           For Opposite party:-   

Member                  FAC President

District Consumer Forum,

Khammam.