Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/50/2019

Sri G.B.Papanna, S/o Boosu Govindappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Asst.Executive Engineer(Ele), Nagara Upa-Vibhaga, Bengaluru Electricity Supply Com.Ltd.,(BESCO - Opp.Party(s)

Sri B.T.Rajanna

22 Mar 2019

ORDER

 

COMPLAINT FILED ON:18/01/2019

DISPOSED      ON:22/03/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

C.C.NO:50/2019

 

DATED: 22^nd MARCH 2019

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

                        SMT. JYOTHI RADHESH JEMBAGI

BSc.,MBA., DHA.,                LADY MEMBER

                       

……COMPLAINANT/S	1. Sri. G.B. Papanna, S/o Boosu Govindappa, Age: 48 Years,   2. Smt. P. Manjula, W/o G.B. Papanna, Age: 45 Years, R/o Hosa Dyamavvanahalli Village, Chitradurga.   (Reptd., By Sri.B.T.Rajanna, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele.,) Nagara Upa-Vibhaga, BESCOM,  Chitradurga.   2. The Executive Engineer (Ele), O & M Circle, BESCOM, Chitradurga.   3. The Chief Engineer (Ele), O & M Zone, BESCOM, Opp: RTO Office, Turuvanur Road, Chitradurga.   4. The Branch Officer (Ele), BESCOM, Nagara Upa-vibhaga, Unit-3 Turuvanur Road, Chitradurga.   3. Sri. Chandrashekhar, S/o Narasimhalu, Age:50 Years, Agriculturist, Kamanabavi Badavane, Chitradurga.   (Reptd., By Sri.T.K. Chandrashekara Rao, Advocate for OP No.1 to 4 and OP No.5 ex-parte)

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.10,00,000/- towards deficiency of service, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs and such other reliefs.  

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainants are that, on Avinash G.P, on 15.09.2017, the son of complainant went to coolie work in the land of one N. Chandrashekar S/o Narasimhalu.  On that day at about 3-30 PM, he started bore well in the said land to get drinking water, by that time unfortunately he came in contact with the electrical shock and died while he was taking to Basaveshwara Hospital, Chitradurga in the middle of the road.  The said Avinash was earning Rs.10,000/- p.m from his coolie work.  Along with coolie work, he was doing Milk business and from that, he was earning Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- p.m.  The entire family is depending upon the earnings of the deceased.  Due to the death of Avinash, the entire family came to street.  The OP No.1 to 4 have erected electric live wire through the land of OP No.1, who has taken electric connection to his bore well from OP No.1 to 4, the same has not been properly maintained by the OP No.1 to 4, due to that, the electrical shock had happened while the said Avinash touched the switch board and died.  As the complainants are the uneducated persons, they are unable to give complaint to the BESCOM Authority.  After the incident, the complainants have lodged a complaint before the concerned Police and thereafter conducted cremation as per their customs and rituals.  The complainants have not given any information on the ground that, the Police will inform about the accident to the BESCOM authorities.  The duty of the OP No.1 to 4 is to inspect the electric live wire and to maintain the same with proper care to safeguard the general public.  The OP No.5 has informed the OP No.1 to 4 several times to inspect the electric live wire and to maintain with proper care, but they failed to maintain the same.  Due to the negligence on the part of OP No.1 to 4, the death of Avinash was caused while he went to start the bore well in the land of OP No.5 to get the drinking water on 15.09.2017, due to electrocution which passes through the switch board when the said Avinash touch the same to start the bore well.  The complainants are the parents of the said Avinash.  During his life time, the said Avinash was studying II PUC at Government Boys Junior College.  Due to the death of said Avinash, the complainants have suffered heavy loss.  Due to the death of said Avinash, the complainants came to street without any earnings to lead their life.  The death of Avinash is due to negligence on the part of OP No.1 to 4 as they have not maintained the Transformer, the electric poles as well as the electric live wires which passes through the land of OP No.5.  Due to the non maintenance of the electric live wires, the same were fluctuated and came in contact with each other, by that time the electrical shock caused which caused the death of Avinash.  The Police have registered a case under UDR No.008/2017 and conducted investigation and given a report that, the incident was occurred unfortunately.  The complainants have issued legal notice to the OPs on 24.12.2018, the failed to reply the same or to compensate the complainants.  The cause of auction arose for this complaint on 15.09.2017 when the death of Avinash occurred and on 24.12.2018 when the legal notice issued to the OPs, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and prayed for allow the complaint.

3.      After service of notice, OP No.1 to 4 appeared through Sri. T.K. Chandrashekara Rao, Advocate and filed version.  In spite of service of notice, OP No.5 did not appear before this Forum, hence placed ex-parte. 

According to the version filed by OP No.1 to 4, it is stated that, the definition of complainant as defined in Section 2(1) of the C.P. Act 1986 do not cover the claims arising under the present dispute and from the aforesaid definitions the complainant is not a consumer and the controversy involved in the complaint is not a consumer dispute.  The averments made in para 1 that, the son of complainants aged about 17 years died on 15.09.2017 on account of electric short circuit is false and baseless and the said incident has not come to the knowledge of these OPs.  These OPs do not know the relationship of complainants with the deceased and the alleged electrical accident is not arising out of the deficiency of OPs, there is no nexus between this accident and these OPs.  Therefore, these OPs are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants.  The averments made in para 2 that, the son of complainant was studying in PUC and during holidays, he was going to coolie in the adjacent lands of the village and on 15.09.2017 the said Avinash went for coolie in the garden of N. Chandrashekar, at about 3-30 PM, as per the instructions of OP No.4, he went to start the borewell for drinking water, by that time he met with electrical accident and thereafter the OP No.5, took the said Avinash to Basaveshwara Hospital, Chitradurga and in the middle of the way, he died is denied as false.  It is further submitted that, no such complaint of this electrical accident reported to these OPs by the complainants or by OP No.5.  In the police complaint, there is no allegation made against these OPs.  The averments made in para 3 that, the deceased was doing coolie and getting income of Rs.10,000/- to 15,000/- and the family of the complainants are maintained from the earnings of the deceased are denied as false.  The averments made in para 5 that, the OP No.1 to 4 have drawn electrical line and on account of non-maintenance of electrical line, the accident has happened when the deceased touched the starter and died due to electric shock are all denied as false.  There is no complaint whatsoever from any public or from the complainants or from OP No.5 for non-maintenance of the electrical line of OP No.1 to 4.  This accident is due to improper maintenance of starter installed in the garden of OP No.5 to his borewell.  The averments made in para 6 of the complaint that, the complainants are illiterate and as such they have not given complaint to these OPs, but the complainants have given police complaint and proceeded for cremation ceremony of the deceased and the complainants produced records that, Sri Avinash died due to electrocution and the complainants believed that, the police have informed the OP No.1 to 4 are all false and baseless.  Since there was no relationship or reason or any fault on the part of these OPs.  It is submitted that, the Police Inspector or any officials of the public department have not informed this electrical accident to these OPs.   The averments made in the complaint that, the OP No.5 has informed the OP No.1 to 4 several times to inspect the electric live wire and to maintain with proper care, but they failed to maintain the same are denied as false.  The averments made in para 7 that, on account of death of Avinash, the family of the complaints is put to great loss and the said Avinash was getting income of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.15,000/- p.m and the entire family was maintaining with the income of the said Avinash and the complainants have lost the love and affection of their son are all not within the knowledge of these OPs, therefore, these OPs are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants as prayed in the complaint.  The averments made in para 8 that, on account of not maintaining the lines by the OP No1 to 4, the said Avinash was died due to electrocution are all denied as false. It is submitted that, the electrical line passing through the land of OP No.5 was maintained in good and proper manner and there was no complaint from anybody regarding the maintenance of electrical lines by OP No.1 to 4, therefore, these OPs are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants.  The averments made in para 8 that, the Police have registered a case under UDR No.008/2017 and conducted investigation and given a report is not known to these OPs.  The averments made in para 9 that, the complainants have issued legal notice to the OPs on 24.12.2018, but, the OPs failed to reply the same or to compensate the complainants is not correct and these OPs have replied the said notice on 17.01.2019 denying the allegations made against these OPs, therefore these OPs are not liable to pay any compensation.    The demand made by the complainants to pay Rs.18,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards costs etc., are all denied as false and baseless.  The accident is not arising out of the lines and transformer of OP No.1 to 4, it is due to defect in the motor and starter of the of land owner i.e., OP No.5.  It is further submitted that, the fatal electrical accident occurred to Avinash, Hosadyamavvanahalli, Chitradurga Taluk as alleged in the complaint, happened on 15.09.2017 in the garden land of OP No.5 is not within the knowledge of these OPs.  These OPs did not receive any complaint of this accident from the complainants or from the Police of from any public.  These OPs have perfectly maintained the electrical lines in good and perfect manner.  The starter of the borewell is purely owned and maintained by OP No.5, it is the duty of the OP No.5 to maintain the starter in good and perfect manner.  As per the instructions of OP No.5, the deceased Avinash went to start the borewell and due to electric shock he died on the spot.  As per the Electricity Act, 2003 R/W I.E. Rules 1956 any accident should be reported to the electrical inspector and also to OPs immediately.  After receiving the complaint, the BESCOM and Deputy Electrical Inspectorate of Karnataka Government will inspect the spot and found out the reason for accident duly inspecting on the spot and also taking statements from the villagers/victims.  In the instant case, no complaint is received from any source, therefore, the OP No.5 is liable to pay compensation to the complainants 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-21 were got marked and closed their side.  On behalf of OP No.1 to 4 one Sri. M.S. Prabhakar, the Assistant Executive Engineer, CSD, BESCOM, Chitradurga has examined as DW-1 by filing affidavit and the documents Ex.B-1 to B-3 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, OPs have failed to take safety measures and thereby the deceased Avinash  came in contact with the electric shock on 15.09.2017 at about 3-30 PM and died 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 Avinash was died on 15.09.2017 due to electrocution while he went to coolie in the land of OP No.5 at Hosadyamavvanahalli village, Chitradurga Taluk.  It is argued by the complainants that, on that day, as per the instructions of the OP No.5, he went to start the borewell to get drinking water, when he touched the starter, he came in contact with the electric short circuit and died.    After that, the complainants intimated about the inident to the concerned police.  The concerned Police have registered a UDR case No.008/2017 and given a report.  After that, the complainants have filed an application before the OP No.1 to 4 claiming compensation, but they have repudiated the claim of the complainants stating that, it is purely negligence on the part of OP No.5.  It is argued by the OP No.1 to 4 that, the borewell is owned by OP No.5, his duty is to maintain the starter of the borewell properly.  It is further argued by the OP No. 1 to 4 that, on 15.09.2017 the said Avinash went for coolie in the garden of N. Chandrashekar, at about 3-30 PM and as per the instructions of OP No.4, he went to start the borewell for drinking water, by that time he met with electrical accident and thereafter the OP No.5, took the said Avinash to Basaveshwara Hospital, Chitradurga and in the middle of the way.  No such complaint of this electrical accident reported to them by the complainants or by OP No.5.  In the police complaint, there is no allegation made against these OP No.1 to 4.  It is vehemently denied by the OP No.1 to 4 that, the deceased was doing coolie and getting income of Rs.10,000/- to 15,000/- and the family of the complainants are maintained from the earnings of the deceased.  OP No.1 to 4 have drawn electrical line and they have maintained the same in a proper way.  The incident has happened when the deceased touched the starter and died due to electric shock, the same is negligence on the part of OP No.5 only.  There is no complaint whatsoever from any public or from the complainants or from OP No.5 for non-maintenance of the electrical line of OP No.1 to 4.  This accident is due to improper maintenance of starter installed in the garden of OP No.5 to his borewell.  It is pertinent to note that, after the death of their son, the complainants have informed about the incident to the concerned Police, they conducted inspection and given report stating that the incident was happened unfortunately. There is no any deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 to 4.  Therefore, OP No.1 to 4 have repudiated the claim of the complainants stating that, they have not committed any deficiency of service.  The complainants have relied upon documents and those documents are marked as Ex.A-1 to 20. The Ex.A-1 discloses that, “on perusal of post mortem examination, FSL report and histopathology report the finding are consistent with death due to electrocution. 

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 son of complainants was died due to electrocution while he went for start the borewell to get drinking water in the house of OP No.5 as per the direction of OP No.5.  After the death of said Avinash, the complainants have lodged a complaint before the concerned Police and the said Police have registered a UDR case No.008/2017.  After that, the complainants have claimed compensation before the OP No.1 to 4.  But OP No.1 to 4 have refused to pay the compensation to the complainants stating that, they have not committed any deficiency of service.  The cause death of Avinash was due to electrocution while he went for start the borewell to get drinking water in the land of OP No.5 as per his instructions.   Hence, the above said points clearly show that the OPs have 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 a earning member is Rs.4,110/- and as per the recent guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court in  Sarala Varma’s citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court and also the age of the deceased is 18 years, the appropriate multiplier will comes to 18.  Then the loss of future income including future prospectus to the claimant will be Rs.137 X 30 = 4,110 X 12 = 49,320  X 18 = Rs.8,87,760, 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.70,000/-, for the negligence on the part of OP No.5, he is liable to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainants in total the amount to be awarded to the complainants as mentioned below:

Towards loss of dependency	Rs.10,87,760-00
Towards conventional heads	Rs.    70,000-00
Total	Rs.11,57,760-00

         

12.    The OP No.1 to 4 are being the authority of BESCOM and they have got much responsibility in looking after the life of an human being and they have to take precautionary measures in removing or in covering the live wire which was gone through the land of OP No.5.  But, even in spite of her oral request by the OP No.5, the OP No.1 to 4have not taken precautionary measures to cover the live wire and this was resulted in the death of Avinash  and  OP No.1 to 5 have 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 to a death of bread earner of a family in the incident and the family has been thrown to the road due to the negligent act of OP No.1 to 5.  Hence, for the said reason the Forum will come to the conclusion that, the OP No. 1 to 5 are solely held liable for payment of compensation to the complainants.    The said amount is to be payable by OPs, since they are being the competitive authority for BESCOM Department and liability against OP No.5 will also arrived since, the OP No.5 was negligent in maintaining the starter of his borewell in his land which caused the death of Avinash. 

13.    Towards bifurcation of the amount in awarded amount, this Forum will adjudicate and award to the complainants, looking into said consideration, they are entitled to get a compensation of Rs.11,57,760/- and complainant No.1 and 2 are the parents of deceased Avinash and they are equally entitled for an amount of Rs.5,78,880/- each.    Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 to 5.  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.1 to 4 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.9,57,760/- to the complainants along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization. 

It is further ordered that, the OP No.5 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainants along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.

Out of which, the complainant No.1 and 2 are entitled for a sum of Rs.5,78,880/- each along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 to 4 are hereby directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards the mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings to the complainants.  

It is further ordered that, the OP No.1 to 5 are 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 22/03/2019 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. M.S. Prabhakar, the Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele) O & M Sub-Division, CSD, BESCOM, Chitradurga by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Final report
02	Ex-A-2:-	Certified copy of UDR
03	Ex-A-3:-	Complaint dated 16.09.2017
04	Ex-A-4:-	Police report
05	Ex-A-5:-	Spot panchanama
06	Ex-A-6:-	Statement of Boraiah
07	Ex-A-7:-	Statement of Yadukumara
08	Ex-A-8:-	Statement of Kumar
09	Ex-A-9:-	FSL report
10	Ex-A-10:-	PM report
11	Ex-A-11:-	RFSL report, Davanagere
12	Ex-A-12:-	Receipt for handing over the deadbody
13	Ex-A-13:-	Certificate for having studied in PUC
14	Ex-A-14:-	Marks Card
15	Ex-A-15:-	Death Certificate
16	Ex-A-16:-	Legal notice dated 24.12.2018
17	Ex-A-17:-	Reply dated 17.01.2019
18	Ex-A-18:-	Postal receipts
19	Ex-A-19:-	Postal acknowledgements
20	Ex-A-20:-	Letter dated 02.01.2019 by the OPs
21	EX.A-21:-	Letter dated 01.01.2019

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Legal notice dated 24.12.2018
02	Ex-B-2:-	Reply dated 17.01.2019
03	Ex-B-3:-	Postal acknowledgement

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**