CC Filed on 27.05.2009<br /> Disposed on 17.11.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 17th day of November 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 40/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Sri. K. Narasappa,<br /> Son of Late Tummalappa,<br /> Major.<br /> <br /> 2. Sri. N. Nagesh,<br /> Son of K. Narasappa,<br /> Aged about 35 years.<br /> <br /> Both are residing at <br /> No. 145, E. Division,<br /> Marigamma Temple Road,<br /> Gowribidanur – 561 208.<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. Ravi Kumar. V) <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele.)<br /> BESCOM, Gowribidanur Sub-Division,<br /> Gowribidanur,<br /> Chikkaballapura District.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Executive Engineer (Ele.),<br /> BESCOM,<br /> Chikkaballapura Division,<br /> Chikkaballapura.<br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. K.N. Nagaraja & others) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainants<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of Smt. Subbamma and the injuries suffered by complainant No.1 Narsappa due to electrocution with costs, interest, etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainants’ case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainants and late Smt. Subbamma along with others were residing in the rented house bearing No. 145, E. Division, Marigamma Temple Road, Gowribidanur. Smt. Subbamma was the wife of complainant No.1 and mother of complainant No.2. On 24.11.2008 at about 4.30 p.m. Smt. Subbamma was laying a wet saree for drying on a zinc wire on the terrace of her house and due to huge wind the wet saree fell on the electric line maintained by OPs. Immediately she suffered electric shock and she was crying due to electrocution and on hearing the cry the complainant No.1 went to save her and he also sustained grievous injuries due to electrocution. Smt. Subbamma succumbed to injuries at Victoria Hospital, Bangalore on 29.11.2008 at 1.05 a.m. during treatment. The complainant No.1 also took treatment for the burn injuries caused due to electrocution. <br /> <br /> It is alleged that the OPs in laying the electric transmission wires were grossly negligent and those wires were within a distance of about 1 ½ feet from the parapet wall of the building of complainants and they had not taken any safety measures to safe guard the life and property of the public. Further it is alleged that if the OPs had taken safety measures and had maintained safe distance in laying the electric wires such incident would not have taken place. <br /> <br /> It is alleged that the complainants and the deceased Subbamma were consumers of the OPs by paying electricity bills and thereby they were Consumers as defined under the C.P. Act 1986 and this complaint is maintainable before this Forum. <br /> <br /> It is alleged that the complainants spent huge amount for treatment and they lost consortium and love of deceased. Therefore they prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.<br /> <br /> 3. The OPs appeared and filed their common version. They denied all the allegations made by complainants against them. They contended that the alleged incident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased Smt. Subbamma and the OPs were not at all responsible for the said incident. Further they contended that the deceased or the first complainant were not the consumers of the OPs, as such the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and this Forum is not having jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. Therefore they prayed for dismissal of complaint. <br /> <br /> 4. The complainant No.1 filed his affidavit by way of evidence. The complainants produced documents. The OPs did not file any affidavit by way of evidence on their behalf within the time granted. They have not produced any documents.<br /> <br /> 5. We heard the Learned Counsel for complainants. The Learned Counsel for OPs was not present at the time of arguments. <br /> <br /> 6. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> Point No.1: Whether the complainants were consumers <br /> within the definition of Section 2 (1) (d) of the C.P. <br /> Act 1986 ? and whether this complaint is maintainable<br /> before this Forum?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2: Whether the complainants prove that there was<br /> deficiency in service by OPs and due to which the deceased <br /> Smt. Subbamma and complainant No.1 sustained injuries <br /> by electrocution?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3: What should be compensation payable by OPs?<br /> <br /> Point No. 4: To Order?<br /> <br /> 7. After considering the submissions of complainants and records our findings on the above points are as follows:<br /> Point No.1: The Learned Counsel for complainants submitted that the complainants were in the rented house which was having electricity facility and they were consuming electricity for domestic purpose and they were paying the electricity bills and further submitted that the electrical connection was taken from the electric line laid by OPs. Therefore he contended that the complainants are consumers of under OPs. <br /> <br /> In the present case the electrocution had taken place as wet saree held by Smt. Subbamma fell on electric line laid by the side of the house of complainants as electricity was flowing in that line that time. The electrocution had not taken place inside the house due to any fault in supply of electricity. <br /> <br /> The definition of ‘Consumer’ defined in Sec. 2(1) (d) of the C.P. Act mainly shows that a person who buys any goods for consideration or who hires or avails of any services for consideration is a ‘Consumer’. In the present case, the case of complainants is that they availed of facility in connection of supply of electricity by OPs to their house. The definition of deficiency prescribed in Sec. 2 (1) (g) of the Act is as follows: “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service; <br /> <br /> A complaint before Consumer Forum is entertainable only if the services hired or availed of for consideration suffer from deficiency in any respect. If a person avails service of supply of electrical energy for domestic purpose for consideration and if there is any fault imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any such service, then a complaint can be certainly maintainable before this Forum. In the present case, the allegation is that because of close proximity of electrical line to the house without there being any safety measures there was fault, imperfection and shortcoming in laying the electric line. The question that arises for consideration is, whether in such circumstance the consumer who availed the services of domestic supply of electricity for consideration can challenge the deficiency in maintaining/laying the electric line outside the house, before a Consumer Redressal Forum or he should avail his remedy before a Civil Court. We feel this is a debatable question and the answer is not easy. <br /> <br /> The Learned Counsel for complainant produced the following citations. <br /> (1) I (2005) CPJ 778, N. Kunchi Babu & Anr. V/s. A.P. Transco & Ors.<br /> <br /> (2) IV (2008) CPJ 139 (NC), C.G.M., P 7 O, NPDCL & Ors. V/s. Koppu Duddarajam & Anr.<br /> (3) II (2001) CPJ 358, C.V. Sesha Narasimhacharvulu & Anr. V/s. A.P. State Electricity Board & Anr.<br /> (4) III (2002) CPJ 269 (NC), Karnataka Electricity Board, now known as Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd., & Anr. V/s. Smt. Sharavva & Ors.<br /> <br /> We have gone through the above decisions. Compensation has been awarded by Consumer Forums in those cases in a somewhat similar facts and circumstances as in the present case for the injuries/death due to electrocution. However in those decisions the question whether in such cases the injured or the deceased was a ‘Consumer’ as defined in the C.P. Act and whether Consumer Forum can entertain a complaint is not specifically raised and answered with reasons. In fact in the 4th decision cited at III (2002) CPJ 269 (NC) in the middle of para.4 it is observed as “it cannot be disputed that the deceased was not a Consumer and there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner for which it was liable to pay compensation”. In this case KEB had preferred Revision Petition against the order of State Commission confirming the award of compensation, for the death of a person who came in contact with a live wire which was snapped from the electric pole supplying electricity to feed his pumpset fitted to his borewell for irrigation of his land. Ultimately the National Commission dismissed the Revision Petition. For our purpose it is sufficient to say that the State Commissions and National Commission have allowed the complaints in similar facts and circumstances. Therefore we are bound to follow these decisions. Accordingly we hold point No.1 in affirmative. <br /> <br /> Point No.2: The complainants have alleged two incriminating facts in the complaint to establish the negligence on the part of OPs in laying the electric line by the side of their house. The first fact is that the electric wires were just at a distance of 1 ½ feet from the parapet wall of the building and the second fact is that the OPs had not taken any safety measures to safe guard the life and property of public while laying the wires so near to the building. In the version filed by OPs there is a general denial of all the facts alleged in the complaint, but no specific answer is given on these two incriminating facts alleged by complainants. As already noted no affidavit by way of evidence is filed by OPs. The photographs produced by complainants show that the electric line was very near to the house and there was no safety measures placed on them. Therefore we believe the truth of these two incriminating facts alleged by complainants. The Learned Counsel for complainants pointed out Rules 79 and 80 of the Indian Electricity Rules 1956 in which it is stated that the safe horizontal minimum distance should be 4 feet from any building. Therefore we hold that there was negligence on the part of OPs in laying the electric line so near to the house, that too without any safety measures in contravention of the above said Rules. <br /> <br /> The complainants have filed complaint before Police after the death of Smt. Subbamma. The complainants have produced the relevant papers prepared by Police and they have also produced the P.M. report of deceased Subbamma and the medical records of complainant No.1. These documents clearly prove that they sustained injuries due to electrocution in the alleged incident. Hence Point No.2 is held in affirmative. <br /> <br /> Point No.3: Smt. Subbamma was initially taken to local hospital for first aid and thereafter she was immediately taken to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. She was in that Hospital from 25.11.2008 till her death on 29.11.2008 at 1.05 a.m. The P.M. report relating to Smt. Subbamma shows that she has sustained burn injuries due to electrocution and that was the cause of death as she developed septicaemia. The P.M. report discloses that Smt. Subbamma was aged about 55 years. The complainant No.1 was aged about 72 years at that time as shown in the medial records and his statement before Police. The complainant No.2 was aged about 35 years at the time of filing of complaint as shown in the cause title. Therefore we may estimate that the age of deceased might be little higher and it may taken as 55-60 years. Therefore we think a global compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- may be awarded for the death of Smt. Subbamma.<br /> <br /> Complainant No.1 had also sustained burn injuries when he attempted to save his wife Smt. Subbamma. He also took treatment in Victoria Hospital and he was inpatient from 25.11.2008 to 07.01.2009. The medical bills for Rs.6,401/- were produced towards the actual expenses towards medicines and some laboratory charges. Considering these facts a sum of Rs.25,000/- may be awarded as compensation for the injuries sustained by complainant No.1. <br /> <br /> The total compensation payable by OPs comes to Rs.2,75,000/-. Hence Point No.3 is held accordingly.<br /> <br /> Point No.4: Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is partly allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. The OPs shall pay Rs.2,75,000/- (rupees two lakh seventy-five thousand only) as compensation less the compensation already paid if any by them, within 6 weeks from the date of this order. In default they shall pay interest at the rate of 6% p.a. on Rs.2,75,000/- from the date of default till the date of realization. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 17th day of November 2009.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />