Karnataka

Kolar

CC/11/12

Mohan Babu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Bangalore Electricity Supply Company - Opp.Party(s)

D.S.Ramagoipal

20 Mar 2012

ORDER

The District Consumer Redressal Forum
District Office Premises, Kolar 563 101.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/11/12
 
1. Mohan Babu
S/o. M.Shankarappa,Aged About 11 Years,2nd Stage,1stFloor,Shankara Complex,Bramin Street,Kolar Town ,Kolar.(Rep.his Natural Gurdian Father by Name M.Shankarappa).
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
ORDER

  Date of Filing : 04.02.2011

  Date of Order : 20.03.2012

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR

 

Dated 20th MARCH 2012

 

PRESENT

 

Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL,   …….                PRESIDENT

 

Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB.                        ……..     MEMBER

 

Smt. K.G.SHANTALA                                         ……..     MEMBER

 

Consumer Complaint No. 12/2011

 

Mohan Babu,

S/o. M. Shankarappa,

Aged about 11 years,

2nd Stage, 1st Floor, Shankar Complex,

Brahmin Street, Kolar Town, Kolar.

Rep. by his natural guardian father

By name M. Shankarappa)

 

(By Advocate Sri. D.S. Ramagopal & others) 

 

V/s.

 

1. The Bangalore Electricity Supply Company,

    Rep. by its Managing Director,

    K.R. Circle,

    Bangalore – 560 001.

 

2. The Bangalore Electricity Supply Company,

    Rep. by the Executive Engineer,

    O & M Division, BESCOM,

    Kolar.

 

3. The Bangalore Electricity Supply Company,

    Rep. by the Asst. Engineer,

    O & M Division, BESCOM,

    Kolar.

   

    (By Advocate Smt. B.S. Vijayakumari)

ORDER

 

By Smt. K.G. SHANTALA, MEMBER

The Complainant has filed this Complaint against the Ops for direction against the Ops to pay compensation amount of Rs.18,00,000/- i.e., Rs.2.00 Lakhs towards mental agony & pain, Rs.8.00 Lakhs for medical expenses & Rs.2.00 Lakhs for loss of future life, with interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of Complaint till the date of realization and such other relief/s the Complainant is entitled to alleging.

 

That on 07.09.2009 when the Complainant came out of his house at 6.00 AM, since it was rainy, the 440 HTV wire running along the ledge of the house attracted the Complainant and dragged towards it was electrocuted.  Due to electrocution, his right hand was completely burnt and so also his legs and private parts.  When he shouted for help, his parents, house owner and other neighbours came to his rescue and got him admitted to R.L. Jalappa Hospital, Tamaka, Kolar, where he was given first aid and referred to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, for higher treatment.  After being treated at Victoria Hospital and M.S. Ramaiah Hospital for 2 months, he returned to Kolar and his father lodged complaint on 17.11.2009 against the Ops and they were charge sheeted for offence u/s. 338 of IPC r/w Sec. 80(2)(a) of I.E. Rules.  The Complainant sustained burns due to electrocution and he lost his right hand and penis at tender age of 11 years and could not attend his examination due to amputation of right hand.  There is deficiency of service in providing safety measures to the electrical high tension wires due to which the incident has taken place.  Huge amount of Rs.6 to 8 Lakhs till date are spent for treatment and is spending for follow-up treatment.  As such, the Ops are liable to compensate for their negligent act in not following safety norms or measures.

2.       In brief the versions of Ops are:-

 

Complaint is not maintainable as the Complainant is not a consumer to the OP.  The electric line was drawn before the construction of the building.  The owner of the building had taken licence for construction of ground floor i.e., for construction of shops, but the owner constructed 1st & 2nd Floor without licence and plan which shows negligence on the part of house owner and he is a necessary party to the case.  The Complaint is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary party.  Huge expenditure by the Complainant is denied.  The Complainant’s attender had given statement that alleged electric burns were caused when the patient caught electric wire while trying to catch sparrow at around 6.15 AM on 17.09.2009.  The Ops are not liable to pay compensation as there is no negligence from Ops and there is no deficiency of service.

 

3.       After going through the Complaint and version, averments, affidavits of both parties, documents and written arguments, the points that arise for our consideration are as under:

(A)     Whether there is negligence and deficiency of service on the part of Ops?

 

          (B)     If so, to what relief/s the complainant is entitled to?

4.       Our findings on the above points are as under:

          (A)     Affirmative

          (B)     As per detailed order for the following reasons

REASONS

5.       Point Nos. A & B – In this case, newspaper clipping forms the basis for the complainant wherein it is stated that the boy had got ready to go to school and there was some time left, he went on terrace and was trying to catch sparrows sitting on the electric wire, his right hand came in contact with electric wire and got electrocuted.  Discharge Summary of R.L.J. Hospital, Kolar shows the Complainant was admitted at 6.40 AM with a history of electric burns.  His condition was unsatisfactory, he was discharged at 2.15 PM.  Discharge Summary of Victoria Hospital, Bangalore discloses patient was admitted on 17.09.2009 with 22% accidental electric burns and discharged on 30.10.2009, treatment given and debridement done and above elbow amputation done under general anesthesia on 19.09.2009 and SSG wire mesh on 20.10.2009.  Discharge Summary of M.S. Ramaiah Hospital, Bangalore reveals patient was admitted on 07.04.2010 and discharged on 17.04.2010.   

 

Post electric burns, perineal and lower and abdominal and medial thighs contracture with loss of genetalia.  History  of electric burn leading to loss of right upper limb and genetalia (external) and burns to lower abdomen and upper medial thighs 6 months prior is on SPL for urine drainage and was skin grafted  in Victoria Hospital. 

 

Course – was admitted for perineal scar excision and soft tissue cover and reconstruction and later phallus reconstruction.  On routine examination, prothrombic time PTT was prolonged for which Fresh Frozen Plasma (FFP) transfusion done and repeat tests showed crusted coagulation.  Patient was planned for massive procedures but was to get discharged at request to follow-up later.  Meanwhile, he was also detected to have urinary tract infection.

 

Follow-up – Plastic surgery OPD as advised.

 

Final diagnosis – Post Electric burn injury to the perineum and right upper limb

 

Status Post – Rt. shoulder amputation, Orchidectory, phalctomy and reconstruction with split skin graft.

 

Admitted for revision of perineal contracture with restricted abduction of the thigh extending just below the umbilicles to about 5 cm from the knee with areas of hyper trop scar.

 

Phallus, Scrotum with testicles – Absent

 

Approximation at midline by split skin graft urethra orifice patent and good tone.

 

.         Patient was admitted with above complaints.  Relevantly investigated, was taken up for release of contracture + scar excision + SSG on 21.05.2010 withstood the procedure well.  Regular dressings were done and was taken up for debridement + insetting of flap on 29.05.2010.  Wounds were healed with regular dressing and was advised plastic surgery and OPD follow-up.

 

6.       The Complainant has produced monthly allowance order dtd. 05.01.2010 issued by Revenue Department to prove that he is physically handicapped.  The photographs produced by the Complainant show the gravity of complainant’s physical condition soon after the incident.  The photographs also show how the HTV electric wires are running dangerously along and across the road where the Complainant is residing.

 

7.       The OP has produced building licence and building plan showing Ground Floor Plan and elevation.  The Ops have admitted that they are the suppliers of the electricity, they also admit the incident but attribute it to the negligent act of the victim boy who while trying to catch sparrows sitting on the wire, came in contact with live wire and got electrocuted.  The Ops are under the duty to safeguard the public at large.  It is their duty to take all measures to see that the wires running are safe.  Since it is the OP department which is solely responsible for maintenance of their electric wires which are drawn by their own department and if these wires become accessable to public easily, unsafe and endanger public at large, the Ops alone are guilty of negligence and they are estopped from shifting their onus on their because none else but their own department can carry out repairs, draw the electric lines, maintain the wires & poles etc. 

 

8.       The photographs reveal that several electric wires including HTV wires are running parallel in close proximity to one another near the place of accident.  As such, Ops are guilty of negligence and there is deficiency of service. 

 

9.       Now we have to see what is the compensation that has to be awarded.  Here the Complainant, victim, consumer is aged about 11 years.  He has lost his right hand, upto the shoulder level there is no hand.  This is totally permanent disability for which usually Rs.7,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/- will be awarded as compensation.

 

10.     Further, Complainant has lost his penis, he cannot procreate the children and he cannot have marital life, he has to leave alone, he is a living vegetable now. There will be mental agony, humiliation, suffering to the Complainant.  For all these things, OP who is responsible.

 

11.     It is seen that about Rs.2.00 Lakhs has been spent towards medical expenses of the Complainant.  Hence, under these circumstances, Complainant is entitled to Rs.15.00 Lakhs towards pain, suffering, permanent disability, mental agony and loss of living and Rs.2.00 Lakhs towards medical expenses.  Hence, we hold the points accordingly and pass the following order.

ORDER

1.       The Complaint is allowed in part. 

 

2.       Ops shall pay global compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) with interest @ 12% P.A. from 17.09.2009 until payment  within 30 days to the Complainant. 

 

3.       The Ops shall also pay Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) to the father of the Complainant towards medical expenses incurred on Complainant within 30 days from the date of this Order. 

 

4.       The amount of Rs.15.00 Lakhs along with interest as ordered at (2) above shall be kept in Fixed Deposit in any Nationalized or Scheduled Bank in the name of the Complainant till he attains the age of majority. 

 

5.       Complainant’s father shall withdraw quarterly interest accruing on the F.D. for the welfare and up-keep of the Complainant till then.

 

6.       Ops shall comply with the order as stated above within the time stated above and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 75 days. 

 

7.       Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005. 

 

8.       Send free copy of the Order to the parties.

 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 20th day of March 2012)

 

 

T. NAGARAJA          K.G.SHANTALA           H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO

    Member                         Member                                       President

                      

  

 

SSS

 

 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.