Date of Filing : 01.09.2010
Date of Order : 25.07.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 25th JULY 2011
PRESENT
Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A., LL.B. (SPL) …. President
Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A., LL.B. …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 2036/2010
Mr. G. Devanath,
S/o. Late Govindarajulu,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at: No. 12/3, 9th Cross,
Bhuvaneshwari Nagar,
Magadi Road,
Bangalore – 560 023. ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Asst. Executive Engineer,
Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.,
N1 Sub Division, No. 1, 40th Cross,
West of Chord Road, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore – 560 010.
2. The Executive Engineer,
Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.,
North Division, 19th Main,
1st Stage, 2nd Block, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore – 560 010.
3. The Managing Director,
Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. Ltd.,
K.R. Circle,
Bangalore – 560 001.
4. The Managing Director,
Karnataka Power Transmission
Corporation Limited,
Cauvery Bhavan, K.G. Road,
Bangalore – 560 009.
5. The Executive Engineer,
KPTCL,
Cauvery Bhavan, K.G. Road,
Bangalore – 560 009. …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
(By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale)
This Complaint is filed by the Complainant u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
2. Brief facts of the case are that Mr. M. Narayanaswamy had constructed the house at No. 16, 3rd Cross, Cholarapalya, Bangalore, and had obtained electricity connection with ID No. 1110301025057 and RR No. EH 22212. The wife of the Complainant has entered into lease agreement with Mr. N. Kumar who is the son of Mr. M. Narayanaswamy, for the II Floor house on 09.06.2008 for a period of 3 years by paying refundable amount of Rs.2,30,000/-. From 09.06.2008, Complainant, his wife and their one & only daughter by name Kum. Nandhita Priya were living in the said house. On 30.03.2010 at about 4.30 PM, daughter of the Complainant Kum. Nandhita Priya while bringing back the dried clothes from the top / terrace of the house, all of a sudden the spark from the adjoining high tension electrical wires got engulfed the cloths on Kum. Nandhita Priya and consequently she burnt in the fire. A Police complaint was lodged with the Magadi Road Police Station on 04.04.2010. Kum. Nandhita Priya was taken to the Sarvodhaya Hospital for treatment and thereafter to Victoria Hospital for further treatment. Ultimately, Kum. Nandhita Priya succumbed to the burn injuries and on 03.04.2010 at about 9.40 PM she died in Victoria Hospital. Postmortem and death certificate are produced. The deceased Kum. Nandhita Priya was one and only daughter of the Complainant. She was studying in 7th Std. in Boston International Public School, Vidyaranyanagar, Bangalore at the time of her death and she was very brilliant & intelligent student in the school. This incident was reported in several newspapers. Due to negligence & deficiency on the part of OPs, Complainant has lost his one & only daughter who was very brilliant, intelligent & charming. After the death of his daughter, Complainant became depressed and suffered mental agony. Therefore, Complainant prayed that OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.10.00 Lakhs to the Complainant.
3. OPs 1 to 3 - BESCOM, have filed defence version stating that there is no negligence on their part. The accident took place near 66 KV line and the said line comes under the jurisdiction of KPTCL. Hence, Complaint is not maintainable against BESCOM. Complainant is not registered as consumer and the registered consumer name is M. Narayanaswamy. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of OPs 1 to 3 and hence not liable to pay compensation. Therefore, OPs 1 to 3 prayed to dismiss the Complaint.
4. OPs 4 & 5 have also filed separate version stating that Complaint is not maintainable. The definition of the “Complainant” under the C.P. Act does not confer any right to file the Complaint invoking the provision of Sec. 12 of the C.P. Act. There is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the OPs 4 & 5. The then KEB has established 66 KV double circuit line in the year 1970 following all the requirements. Complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of owner of the premises who has negligently constructed the building in utter disregard to the provisions of the Rule 80 of the Indian Electricity Rules. If at all there is any negligence, it is attributable only to the owner of the building. The horizontal clearance is to be 2.3 Mtrs. and vertical clearance is to be 4 Mtrs. from the lowest sag of the transmission line to the top of the Building. After coming to know the accident, OP5 got the horizontal distance checked and the owner has constructed leaving only 1.5 Mtrs. and therefore it is clear violation of the horizontal clearance. Therefore negligence is on the part of owner of the building. Ever since the transmission line was charged is about 40 years ago and there are no accident. The daughter of the Complainant Kum. Nandhita Priya met with electrocution is not within the knowledge of OPs 4 & 5. OPs 4 & 5 submitted that there is no negligence on their part. Therefore, Complainant is not entitled for compensation. OPs 4 & 5 requested to dismiss the Complaint.
5. Both parities have filed their affidavit evidence. Complainants have produced the documents. On behalf of OPs, no documents have been produced in support of their defence. Arguments are heard.
6. In the light of the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsels for the parties, following points have arisen for consideration:
(1) Whether the Complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
(2) Whether the Complainant is entitled for the compensation? If so, against whom and what would be the quantum of compensation?
(3) What order & relief ?
7. It is the case of the Complainant that Complainant’s wife Smt. Shankari had taken the possession of II Floor of the House at No. 16, 3rd Cross, Cholarapalya, Bangalore, from its owner Mr. N. Kumar, on lease basis in the year 2008. Wife of the Complainant had paid refundable lease amount of Rs.2,30,000/-. Since then Complainant, his wife and their daughter were residing in the said house. The Complainant has produced agreement of Lease entered into between N. Kumar and Smt. Shankari. It is the case of the Complainant that on 30.03.2010 at about 4.30 PM, his daughter Kum. Nandhita Priya went to terrace of the house to collect the dried clothes. When she was returning back, the high tension wire which was passing through the building got engulfed the clothes and thereby Kum. Nandhita Priya was sustained burn injuries in the electrocution and she was taken to Sarvodhaya Hospital for treatment for burn injuries and she was shifted to Victoria Hospital for further treatment. Unfortunately, she could not be recovered from burn injuries and she died on 03.04.2010 at 9.40 PM at Victoria Hospital. Complainant has produced the statement given by him before the Magadi Road Police Station. The Police have registered a case u/s. 174 of CrPC at FIR 0013 on 09.04.2010 copy of which is produced. Police had recorded statement of deceased Kum. Nandhita Priya while she was admitted in the Hospital before the death, copy of which is produced. The postmortem examination report of Kum. Nandhita Priya is also produced. Opinion as to the cause of death mentioned in the postmortem report is “death is due to septicemia consequent upon burn injuries sustained. Inquest Panchanama of the dead body, Death Certificate of Kum. Nandhita Priya, Progress Report of Boston international School where she was studying in VII Std. and Photograph are produced. Also Newspaper cuttings is produced to show that news appeared in the press about the death of the girl due to electrocution.
8. By the pleadings, affidavit evidence and by the documents produced by the Complainant, it is very clear that the Complainant has established and proved that his daughter Kum. Nandhita Priya died out of burn injuries due to electrocution on 03.04.2010. As regards death is concerned, no further discussion is required. The important point to be considered or decided is whether the death of Kum. Nandhita Priya was due to deficiency of service on the part of OPs. OPs 1 to 3 submitted in their version that 66 KV Line which had passed near the accident spot comes under the jurisdiction of KPTCL. Therefore, Complaint against BESCOM is not maintainable. As regards this aspect is concerned, there is absolutely no dispute. OPs 4 & 5 have also accepted that the said line comes under their jurisdiction. Therefore, the liability if any to be fixed for deficiency of service is against OPs 4 & 5. This point is very clear. The fact that the girl of 13 years old died due to electrocution has been proved and established. As per the defence of OPs 4 & 5, there should be horizontal clearance to the extent of 2.3 mtrs. and vertical clearance must be 4 mtrs. as per the regulation from the electrical line. OPs 4 & 5 submitted that owner of the building had constructed the building violating the regulation. OPs 4 & 5 have not produced any evidence either oral or documentary to establish that owner of the building had violated the regulation in not keeping the required distance from the electrical line. Admittedly, OPs have not produced a single document to prove their defence. By taking bald defence in the version will not establish the defence taken by the OP. There must be supporting documents and evidence to establish the defence taken in the defence version. If at all owner of the building had violated the regulation, OPs 4 & 5 could have taken action against the owner and complaint could have been filed with the Police or to the Corporation Authorities, such things have not been done by the OPs 4 & 5. For the first time, OPs 4 & 5 have come up with this defence in this case that the owner of the building had violated the regulation and they have failed to show that owner of the house had constructed the building without clearance as per the regulation. The fact that transmission line was passing on the top of the building having been admitted, OPs 4 & 5 have not taken proper care & caution in maintaining the line. The deceased came into contact with the live wire which was not insulated and due to electrocution Complainant’s daughter died. Therefore, OPs 4 & 5 must be held responsible for the accidental death of the Kum. Nandhita Priya.
9. The Learned Counsel for the Complainant relied upon the judgement reported in 2008 CPJ 332, Union Territory Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, wherein it has been held as under:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g) and 14(1)(d) – Electrocution – Compensation – Deceased came in contact with stay wire, not insulated properly – Died due to shock – Proper precaution to insulate stay wire not taken – Negligence on part of OP proved – Compensation and cost awarded
10. This Forum in several cases has allowed the Complaints against Electricity Board and granted compensation to the Complainants for electrocution. The judgements passed by this Forum have also been confirmed by the Hon’ble State Commission. That means, consumer fora have got jurisdiction and authority to award compensation under the C.P. Act in the nature of present case.
11. The other defence taken by the OPs 4 & 5 is that owner of the building is necessary party to the present proceedings. There is no merit in this defence. Why the owner of the building should be made as a party in this case. It is on account of deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the OPs 4 & 5. Due to negligence of the OPs 4 & 5 accident had taken place and they are bound to pay the compensation amount for the death caused due to electrocution. Therefore, owner of the building is not at all necessary party.
12. Another defence taken by the OPs 4 & 5 is that complainant is not a consumer as the electricity Meter does not stand in his name. Again there is no merit and substance in this defence, because Complainant, his wife and their daughter have taken the II Floor of the building on lease only from the owner of the building. Therefore, they definitely come under the definition of the consumer. It is not necessary that Meter should stand in the name of the Complainant himself since the owner of the building taken electricity connection and Meter fixed to the building and therefore the OPs 4 & 5 are bound to pay compensation for the death of 13 years old girl caused due to electrocution.
13. As regards compensation aspect is concerned, Complainant has claimed Rs.10.00 Lakhs as compensation. Deceased girl was 13 years old at the time of death and she was studying in VII standard in Boston International School. It is argued that she was one and only daughter to the Complainant and on account of her death he has suffered mental agony and trauma and therefore the Learned Counsel for the Complainant submitted that just, fair & reasonable compensation may be awarded. Due to death of one & only daughter Kum. Nandhita Priya, parents would definitely suffer mentally throughout their life and it is very big loss which cannot be measured in terms of money. Taking into consideration the death of 13 years old girl, the Complainant & his wife naturally suffered mental shock, agony & trauma and they must be compensated for the untimely death of their one and only daughter. On the facts & circumstances of the case, it will be just, fair & reasonable to award global compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Complainant. OPs 4 & 5 are responsible for the payment of compensation amount. Consumer Protection Act is a social and benevolent legislation intended to protect better interest of the consumers. Complainant being a consumer under the C.P. Act, his interest is required to be protected by passing suitable orders in this case. Therefore, in order to meet ends of justice, it is fit and proper case wherein OPs 4 & 5 shall have to be directed to pay compensation for their deficiency of service and negligence in not taking proper precaution and required care & caution. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Complaint is allowed. OPs 4 & 5 are directed to pay global compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
In the event of non compliance of this order within 30 days, the above amount carries interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of the Order till the date of payment / realization.
Complainant is also entitled for Rs.2,000/- as costs of the present proceedings.
Complaint as against OPs 1 to 3 stands dismissed.
Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 25th day of July 2011.
Order accordingly
PRESIDENT
We concur the above findings
MEMBER MEMBER
SSS
