Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/13/13

G. Thirumalaiah S/o Hanumaiah - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Asst. Engineer, Town-I, APCPDCL, MBNR & another. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri R. Srinivasulu

21 May 2014

ORDER

                                                                                                                  O R D E R

 

 (Sri D. Shankar Rao, Member)

 

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay the death compensation of the she-buffalo total Rs.90,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition to till the date of realization, to pay Rs.5,000/- towards suffering and mental agony besides a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

2. The facts of the complaint are that the complainant went to the fields on 30-09-2012 along with his she-buffalo for grazing and while returning to home in the evening at about 5:30 p.m. after reached to the electrical transformer at the locality of Kurvisetty colony, Bandlageri, Mahabubnagar, where the electrical live wires are fallen down due to rain came into contact with she-buffalo, as a result she-buffalo of complainant died. The opposite parties 1 & 2 have not been maintaining with due care and proper fencing around the transformers. The she-buffalo of complainant died due to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2.  The complainant has suffered for his livelihood due to death of she-buffalo and he is entitled for compensation.  

   The complainant has lodged a complaint in Town-I P.S. Mahabubnagar on 1-10-2012.  The police have conducted an inquest Panchanama of she-buffalo and Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Mahabubnagar conducted post-mortem examination and opined that the she-buffalo died due to electrocution and issued death certificate. The complainant has got issued legal notice to the opposite parties 1 & 2 on 21-11-2012 and they acknowledged the same but they have not responded. Hence this complaint for payment of Rs.45,000/- towards death compensation of she-buffalo and Rs.45,000/- towards loss of earnings with 12% interest p.a. besides Rs.5,000/- as compensation towards mental agony with costs of Rs.1,000/- for the proceedings of complaint.

3.  The opposite party No.1 filed counter and the same is adopted by the opposite party No.2.  Briefly stated that the complainant is not consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The Hon’ble Forum has no Jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant ought to have filed his case in a competent Civil Court.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. All the averments made in the complaint are false.  However, those are put to strict proof of the same.  It is submitted that the electric wire or the wire which was in support of the pole, a stay wire did not fall on the ground and touched the buffalo.  In fact the buffalo came running and contacted the stay wire, due to which the said stay wire was snapped on the fuse box, the stay wire got electrocuted inturn she-buffalo was electrocuted. It is its own negligence of she-buffalo and whole responsibility of complainant who has to safeguard his cattle. Thus the entire negligence is on the part of complainant.  Registering the police case, conducting inquest, PME, etc., are not aware by opposite parties, however they are not in any way prove the negligence or carelessness.  The cost of she-buffalo, its age and income are not supported by any documents. The complainant is not entitled to claim any compensation and is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4.  During enquiry, the complainant filed his affidavit as PW-1 evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 documents and closed his evidence.  The OP-1 filed the affidavit of B. Ramesh Babu S/o Shankaraiah, Assistant Engineer, Operation as RW-1 evidence and the same is adopted as evidence of OP-2 and no documents are marked on their behalf and closed their evidence.

5.   Heard arguments.   

6.   Points for consideration are:-

    i)  Whether the complaint is maintainable under Consumer Protection  

        Act, 1986?

   ii)  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite

        parties 1 & 2?

  iii)   To what relief?

7.   Point Nos.1, 2 & 3:- There is no dispute that the she-buffalo died due to electrocution on 30-9-2012 at the electrical transformer of A.P. Central Power Distribution Company (APCPDCL) under control of OPs.1 & 2 situated in the locality of Kurvisetty colony, Bandlageri, Mahabubnagar.  

       The case of the complainant is that the electrical live wires are fallen on the ground due to rain which are came into contact with she-buffalo and the said she-buffalo was electrocuted. The incident was happened due to lack of care and maintaining the proper fencing around the transformer by OPs.1 & 2. Therefore there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

          The version of the opposite parties is that the she-buffalo came running and contacted the stay wire, due to which the said stay wire was snapped on the fuse box, the stay wire got electrocuted, inturn she-buffalo was electrocuted. It is its own negligence of she-buffalo and whole responsibility of complainant. Further contended that there is no consumer relationship between complainant and the service providers of OPs.1 & 2 to try the case under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainant ought to have filed his case before competent Civil Court where the case have Jurisdiction.

          In view of rival versions with regarding to the issues of carelessness, negligence and maintainability of the case are constitute the dispute between the parties for adjudication.

          In order to prove the case, the complainant has filed his own affidavit as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 documents.  In addition to that the counsel for the complainant filed his written arguments and cited two Judgments in R.P.Nos.1348 of 2012 and 1349 of 2012 of Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi and the Hon’ble Apex Court Judgment in Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari and Others supporting his case. Similarly, the OPs.1 & 2 have filed the affidavit of  B. Ramesh Babu S/o Shankaraiah, Assistant Engineer, Operation as   RW-1 and filed their written arguments.  

          We have perused the case record and gone through the written arguments and cited Judgments. Four photos in Ex.A-3 are clearly showing that the electrical transformer have no fencing and left it in open. The dead body of she-buffalo also there lying on the ground by touching with fuse boy electrical pole besides transformer.  Hence we are in opinion that the OPs.1 & 2 have not been maintaining the said transformer with due care and fencing and free from untoward incidents.  At this juncture, the version of the opposite parties is that the she-buffalo running and contacted the stay wire, due to which the said stay wire was snapped on the fuse box, the stay wire got electrocuted, inturn she-buffalo was electrocuted. But the OPs.1 & 2 have not placed any record of enquiry/report over the incident or atleast any scrap of paper as evidence supporting to their plea. In the absence of such evidence, there is no weight in the contention of opposite parties that the sole and whole negligence and carelessness of she-buffalo as well as complainant and the said she-buffalo was electrocuted. Therefore we inclined to accept the version of complainant that the she-buffalo was electrocuted due to carelessness and negligence of OPs.1 & 2.

          Further the plea of OPs.1 & 2 is that there is no consumer relationship between the complainant and OPs.1 & 2 as service providers and the complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and it would lie before competent Civil Court. Except filed the affidavit as RW-1 and written arguments, the OPs.1 & 2 have not cited any Judgments from higher Courts supporting their plea. On the other hand, the complainant has cited Judgments stated supra supporting maintainability of his case under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi has decided two Revision Petitions Nos.1348/2012 & 1349/2012 on 14-01-2013 against Karnataka State Electricity Board wherein two counts have been decided.  One is guilty of deficiency of service on the part of Electricity Board and another is quantum of compensation. The factual matrix of cases are that the bullocks while passing through village path got electrocuted due to fall of live electric wire and died on the spot. Hence the cited Revision Petitions Nos.1348/2012 & 1349/2012 are quite applicable to the facts of present case.  In the light of order in cited cases, we are of considered opinion that there is guilty of deficiency of service on the part of OPs.1 & 2 and they are liable to pay death compensation of she-buffalo died in electrocution.

An inquest Panchanama in Ex.A-1 and Post Mortem Examination in Ex.A-2 are showing the complainant is owner of said electrocuted she-buffalo and its age is 5 - 5 ½ years with approximate cost of Rs.45,000/-.  Though the OPs.1 & 2 have vehemently denied in their written arguments but they have not rebutted the evidence in Exs.A-1 & A-2 by adducing any evidence with regarding to the standard price of the Graded Murrey buffalo. Hence we are of view that the complainant is owner of electrocuted she-buffalo and cost of it was for Rs.45,000/- only.

Further claim of complainant for Rs.45,000/- towards loss of earnings and Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony are not entitled in view of granting Rs.45,000/- as cost of electrocuted she-buffalo for purchasing new she-buffalo as observed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in the cited Revision Petitions stated supra.

Therefore in view of aforesaid discussion and findings, we are of considered opinion that the OPs.1 & 2 are liable to pay Rs.45,000/- as death compensation for electrocuted she-buffalo with interest and costs.

IN THE RESULT, the complaint is allowed partly as under:-

1. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are directed to pay Rs.45,000/- as death compensation for electrocuted she-buffalo to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of death of she-buffalo i.e., on 30-09-2012  till realization.
2. The opposite parties 1 & 2 are also directed to pay Rs.1,000/- to the complainant as cost of complaint.  

        Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 21^st day of May, 2014.   

 

 

 MEMBER                                                                                                                                        PRESIDENT (FAC)