Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/212/2018

Govindamma w/o Siddalingappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Assistant Executive engineer,Bescom - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.R.N.Parthalingappa

01 Mar 2019

ORDER

 

COMPLAINT FILED ON:22/10/2018

DISPOSED      ON:01/03/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

C.C.NO:212/2018

 

DATED: 1^st MARCH 2019

PRESENT :-     SRI.T.N.SREENIVASAIAH :   PRESIDENT                                     B.A., LL.B.,

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

                       

……COMPLAINANT/S	1. Govindamma,  W/o Siddalingappa, Aged about 55 Years,   2. Jayalakshmi, W/o S.Balachandra, Aged about 33 Years,   3. Ashok, S/o Siddalingappa, Aged about 31 Years,   4. S.Siddalingappa, Aged about 21 Years, All are R/o Megalahatti Village, Molakalmuru Taluk, CHITRADURGA DIST.   (Reptd., By Sri. Parthalingappa, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Hanagal, Molakalmuru Taluk.   2. The Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Behind D.C.Office, Chitradurga Town.   3. The Junior Engineer(Ele.,) Transmission Line Maintenance, KPTCL, Talaku village, Challakere Taluk, Chitradurga.   (Reptd., By Sri.T.K. Chandrashekara Rao, Advocate)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainant u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.17,00,000/- for death of deceased Siddalingappa with interest at the rate of 18% p.a and such other reliefs.  

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainants are that, they are the LRs of deceased Siddalingappa, who is husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant Nos.2 to 4 respectively.  The said Siddalingappa is an agriculturist owning land bearing sy.No.34 measuring 32-acres 01-guntas in Hangal Village, Molakalmuru taluk, Chitradurga District, who is an uneducated leads his family from the earnings of agricultural work and the entire family is depending upon income of deceased Siddalingappa.   The deceased Siddalingappa was regularly doing cultivating Togari in his land and he use to earn Rs.5,00,000/- p.a excluding expenses and the entire amount was given to the hands of complainant No.1 to look after the family necessity.  Due to the death of deceased Siddalingappa, the entire family has been thrown to road since he is the bread earner of the family as there is no other earning member in the family.  It is further submitted that, on 07.01.2017 at about 11-30 AM the deceased Siddalingappa went to his land for agricultural work and in order to feed food for sheep and goats.  By that time, he went to Neem tree which was in his land since he was in need of Neem leaves for the feed towards sheep and goats and has pt Loti for cutting Neem leaves and unfortunately the 220 KV electric wires which were went on the same Neem tree came in touch with the said loti and died due to electrical burning on the spot.  Thereafter, the deceased Siddalingappa was taken to Molakalmuru Primary Health Centre, where conducted PM and after the PM, the dead body was given to the hands of complainant No.1 and the complainant No.1 brought the dead body to her native place and funeralised as per the customs of their religion and after that, the complainants have conducted Vykunta Samaradhane of deceased Basavarajppa by incurring Rs.50,000/- towards Vykunta Samaradhane and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation of dead body from Primary Health Centre and again and again from Molakalmuru to their native place.  The above incident has been occurred due to the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 and 2 since they have not taken necessary steps in covering the 220 KV electric live wire which was going through the lands of deceased Siddalingappa, since for 220 KV electric live wires everything and every material has to be removed under the said live wire, since it is having a high designated voltage since it is having a powerful transmission of electric power from live wire.  Due to the negligence act of OP No.1 and 2, the said Siddalingappa was died due to electrical burnings.  The OP No.1 and 2 have made deficiency in service in not removing the Neem tree which was under 220 KV live wire which gone to the land of deceased Siddalingappa and they have neglected in their duty in removing the said Neem tree and  for the negligence act of the OP No.1 and 2, the said Siddalingappa has lost his life.  After the incident, the complainants visited the OP No.1 and 2 office for compensation, but they have given one or the other reasons, but finally on 20.03.2017 the OP No.1 and 2 have refused to pay the compensation to the complainants.  The Molakalmuru Police have registered a UDR under Crime No.0002/2018 u/Sec.174 of Cr.P.C.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 07.01.2017, the date on which the incident has been occurred and on 31.01.201, 22.02.2017, 10.02.2017, 25.08.2018 and on 03.10.2018 the last date on which the complainants have visited the OP No.1 and OP No.1 and 2 have refused to pay the compensation, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and hence, prayed for allow the complaint.

3.      After service of notice, OP No.1 to 3 appeared through Sri. T.K. Chandrashekara Rao, Advocate and filed version denying the entire allegations made in the complaint. 

OP No.1 to 3 have taken a contention that, on 07.01.2017 at about 3-00 PM the Junior Engineer (Ele) TLM, KPTCL has received the information that, one Sri Siddalingappa  met fatal electrical accident at Megalahatti village, where 66 KV Hangal-Nagasamudra line was passing and OP No.3 visited the accident spot and found that, the deceased Siddalingappa has made grass heap and also drawn fencing to his land near 66 KV line and near the khana the deceased also grown up subabola trees, which is against to the Section 82 of Indian Electricity Rules 1956.  It is further submitted that, while cutting the subabola branches for his cattle, the deceased negligently enlarged his hand with his bill hook and came in contact with the electric line passing near the subabola tree and died at the spot.  It is the negligent act of the deceased Siddalingappa and also making the gross heap near the existing electrical line passing in his land, which lead to his death.  Immediately, the police complaint lodged with the Police Sub-Inspector, Molakalmuru and also sent report to Deputy Electrical Inspector, Chitradurga narrating the incident.  The Electrical Inspector, Davanagere conducted the enquiry regarding the cause of action and submitted report to the Government of Karnataka, Energy Department, Bangalore vide No.5986-95 dated 20.03.2017.   As per the said report, it is evident that, the deceased Siddalingappa grown subabola tree near the electric line and also made khana near the electrical line and also negligently cut down the subabola branches through his bill hook and came in contactwith the electrical line and died.  The statement of Bommanna S/o Maraiah dated 07.01.2017 and spot mahazar dated 07.01.2017 and statement of Jayalakshmi W/o Chandranna and Govindamma W/o Siddalingappa before the Police establishes beyond doubt that, there was subabola tree grown near the electrical line and also gross in the land of deceased Siddalingappa and also the deceased negligently without care was cutting the subabola branches through his bill hook by enlarging his hand near the electric line and came in contact with the electric lines and died.  It is further submitted that, the electrical lines passing through the land was perfectly maintained and also the jungle cutting was done in 66 KV line of Hangal-Nagasamudra which was passing through the land of deceased Siddalingappa.  The deceased was grown up subabola trees in spite of cutting the trees and also made grass heap near the 66 KV line which was passing through his land.     The deceased Siddalingappa has violated the Indian Electricity Rules 1956 and Section 82 of the said Rules.  It is prohibited u/Sec. 82 of the said Rules, which states that if at any time subsequent to the erection of overhead lines any person proposes to erect any structure should give notice to the appropriate authority.  In this case the deceased has not given any notice before making khana near the existing line and also repeatedly growing the subabola trees by violating the Electricity Rules.  The complainants are not the consumer of OPs and this complainant has no locus-standie or jurisdiction to file this complaint and there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainants and OPs and hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant No.1 has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-6 were got marked and closed their side.  On behalf of OP No.1, one Sri.C. Chikkanna, the Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele) BESCOM, Molakalmuru and on behalf of OP No.3, one Sri. S.B. Prashanth, Junior Engineer(Ele), TLM Section, Talak, Challakere have examined as DW-1 and DW-2 by filing affidavit and the documents Ex.B-1 to B-9 were got marked. 

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

1. Whether the complainant proves that, OP No.1 to 3 have failed to take safety measures and thereby the Siddalingappa  came in contact with the electric line on 07.01.2017 at about 11-30 AM and died at the spot and thereby OPs have committed deficiency of service and entitled for the relief as prayed for?

              (2) What order?

          7.      Our findings on the above points are as follows:-

                    Point No.1:- Partly in affirmative.

                    Point No.2:- As per final order.

REASONS

8.      Point No.1:-  There is no dispute between the parties that, the deceased Siddalingappa was died on 07.01.2017 due to electrocution in his land.  It is argued by the complainants that, on that day, the deceased Siddalingappa was gone to his land bearing sy. Noi.34 situated at Hangal village of Molakalmuru taluk to cut Neem leaves for his sheep and goats.  By that time, he put the Loti for cutting neem leaves on the neem tree and unfortunately, he came in contact with the 66 KV electric wires which was passing on the Neem tree and died at the spot due to electrocution.  After that, the complainants intimated about the death of Siddalingappa to the concerned police, the concerned Police registered the case under UDR case No.0008/2018.  After that, the complainants have also informed about the incident to the OPs.  The death of Siddalingappa was caused due to the negligence on the part of OPs, the entire family is depending upon the earnings of deceased Siddalingappa.  The Advocate for OPs argued that, the deceased Siddalingappa was removing the subabol leaves in his land to feed his sheep and goats by that time, he put the Loti on the neem tree negligently, due to that effect he came in contact with the electric live wire and died due to electrocution and the OPs have not committed any deficiency of service in maintaining the electric live wires.  Moreover, the OPs have admitted that, the electric live wire was going through the land of deceased Siddalingappa.  It is the bounden duty of the OPs to maintain the above said wires properly.  Generally, the electric live wires which were going through the agricultural lands in the villages are hanging nearer to the earth, the same is to be maintained properly by the OP authorities.  But, in this case, the OPs have not maintained the electrical live wires and not taken care to protect the public at large.  After the incident, the OPs have taken care in maintaining the same.  Due to the negligence act of the OPs, the death of said Siddalingappa occurred.  Further it is argued by the OPs that, the OP No.1 and 2 are not the responsible persons and OP No.3 is the only responsible person to maintain the electrical wires properly.  Therefore, this Forum comes to the conclusion that, the OP No.3 is held responsible to maintain the electric live wires which was going through the land of deceased Siddalingappa.

9.   We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainants and the OPs.  After going through the documents, it clearly shows that, there is no dispute that, the husband of complainant No.1 was died due to electrocution while he was cutting the neem leaves to feed his sheep and goats in his land.  After the death of Siddalingappa, the complainants have lodged a complaint before the concerned Police and the said Police have registered a UDR case No.000/2017.  After that, the complainants have claimed compensation before the OPs.  But OPs have refused to pay the compensation to the complainants stating that, they have not committed any deficiency of service.  It is evident from the documents that, the OP No.3 has neglected to maintain the electric live wire which grown near the electric live wire, due to the said act, the deceased came in contact with the electrical wire and died at the spot.  The death of Siddalingappa was due to electrocution while he was cutting the neem leaves in his land which shows that, the OP No.3 has made deficiency in service in maintaining the live wire which has gone through the land of deceased Siddalingappa.  Hence, the above said points clearly show that the OP No.3 has made deficiency in service. 

As per the available citations of CPJ 2010 (NC) 97 (I) in the case of N. Kunchi Babu and another Vs. A.P. Transco Hyderabad and others, the Hon’ble National Commission has held that;

 

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d) – electrocution – compensation – enhancement – wires touching balcony of house – child of 14 years age got electrocuted – legs and hands burnt – hand and fingers of both legs removed by doctors – deficiency in service, gross negligence and dereliction of duties alleged – compensation granted by Hon’ble State Commission. 

 

 As per the Citation of 2002 ACJ 526 (SC) in the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs Shail Kumri and others wherein it has been held that;

“Tort – electrocution – a strict liability – compensation – liability of electric board – cyclist riding his cycle in the night was electrocuted when he came in contact with live electric wire lying on the road partially in undated with rain water – electricity board contended that electrocution was due to clandestine supply line was unattended and not taken any precautions towards supply line and that the line got unfastened from the book and fell on the road, stranger is liable – trial court assessed compensation at Rs.4,34,000/- but dismissed the suit on the ground that claimants failed to prove who was liable – High Court mulcted liability on the electricity board – whether the Electricity Board is liable – held yes.  If the energy transmitted causes injury or death of a human being who gets unknowingly trapped into it the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of electricity energy; merely because the illegal act could be attributed to a stranger is not enough to absolve the liability of the Board regarding live wire lying on the road.”

 

10.    Hence, the above citations of the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble National Commission are applicable to the case on hand and as per the above cited citations, the OP No.1 and 2 are liable payment of compensation to the complainant.   

11.    Then the main question comes before the Forum is that, what is the quantum has to be paid to the complainants.  As per the recent guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also as per the disability notification dated 2001 of Central Government, personal earnings to the deceased and on the basis of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we would like to take notional income for an agriculturist is Rs.12,000/- including the future prospectus for the age limit of 50 to 60 as per the recent guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Sarala Varma’s citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court, then the amount will arrive of Rs.12,000/- p.m including future prospectus and also the age of the deceased is 60 years, the appropriate multiplier will comes to 9.  Then the loss of future income including future prospectus to the claimant will be Rs.12,000 X 12 = 1,44,000/3 = 48,000 X 2 = 96,000  X 9 = Rs.8,64,,000/-, is towards loss of dependency and also towards other conventional heads like loss of consortium, loss of love and affection, loss of estate to the parents and also towards funeral and transportation of dead body in total this Forum will award Rs.2,50,000/-, in total the amount to be awarded to the complainants as mentioned below:

Towards loss of dependency	Rs.8,64,000-00
Towards conventional heads	Rs.2,50,000-00
Total	Rs.11,14,000/-

         

12.    The OP No.3 being the authority of BESCOM and it has got much responsibility in looking after the life of an human being and they have to take precautionary measures in removing or in cutting the live wire which was gone through the agricultural lands.  But, the OP No.3 has not taken precautionary measures to remove/cut the live wire and this was resulted in the death of Siddalingappa and  OP No.3 has made the clear deficiency in service in not taking proper steps to safe guard the public interest and life of an human being which caused a bread earner of a family has been died in the incident and the family has been thrown to the road due to the negligent act of OP No.3.  Hence, for the said reason the Forum will come to the conclusion that, the OP No. 3 is solely held liable for payment of compensation to the complainants.    The said amount is to be payable by only OP No.3 since it being the competitive authority for BESCOM Department and liability against OP No.1 and 2 will not be arrived since, the OP No.1 and 3 have no role in maintaining the electric live wire and hence, case against OP No.1 and 2 is not maintainable and hence, the case against OP No.1 and 2 is liable to be dismissed.

13.    Towards bifurcation of the amount in awarded amount, this Forum will adjudicate and award to the complainant No.1 is the wife and she is an old aged and looking into said consideration, she is entitled to get a compensation of Rs.9,64,000/- and complainant No.2 to 4 are the sons and daughter of deceased Siddalingappa and they are equally entitled for an amount of Rs.50,000/- each.    So, in all the complainants are entitled to get for the amount of Rs.11,14,000/-.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP No.3.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainants.    

  14.     Point No.2:- As discussed on the above point and for the reasons stated therein we pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint filed by the complainants U/s 12 of CP Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.3 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.11,14,000/- to the complainants towards compensation along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of incident i.e., on 07.01.2017 till realization. 

Out of which, the complainant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.9,64,000/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of incident i.e., on 07.01.2017 till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the complainant No.2 to 4 are entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- each along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of incident i.e., on 07.01.2017 till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of this proceedings to the complainant No.1.  

Complaint as against OP No.1 and 2 is hereby dismissed.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 01/03/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

 

PW-1:  Complainant No.1 by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

 

DW-1: Sri.C. Chikkanna, the Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele) BESCOM, Molakalmuru by way of affidavit evidence.

 

DW-2: Sri. S.B. Prashanth, Junior Engineer(Ele), TLM Section, Talak, Challakere by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Certified copy of UDR
02	Ex-A-2:-	Charge sheet
03	Ex-A-3:-	Inquest report
04	Ex.A-4:-	PM report
05	Ex.A-5:-	RTC extract of sy.No.34
06	Ex.A-6:-	Report of BESCOM dated 20.03.2017

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Report of Electrical Inspectorate, Davanagere dated 20.03.2017
02	Ex-B-2:-	Statement of Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele) dated 31.01.2017
03	Ex-B-3:-	Statement of Sandeep, Junior Engineer, Talak
04	Ex-B-4:-	Statement of Sandeep, Junior Engineer, Talak
05	Ex-B-5:-	Statement of Bommanna
06	Ex-B-6:-	Spot Panchanama
07	Ex-B-7:-	Statement of Jayalakshmi
08	Ex-B-8:-	Statement of Complainant No.1
09	Ex-B-9:-	Statement of employees working in the locality on the date of incident

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**