O R D E R
AS PER SRI G.APPALA NAIDU, MEMBER
This Complaint is filed under section-12 of C.P.Act 1986 seeking the reliefs to pass an award in favour of the complainants and against the OP’s directing them to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only) towards compensation due to the death of Tamala Lakshmi due to the electrical accident together with interest at 12% per annum from the death of the accident till the date of realization and also to award damages for the mental agony caused to the complainants, to award costs of the complainants and to grant such other relief or reliefs as Hon’ble Forum deems fit and the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice on the following averments:-
The complainants are the permanent residence of Dabba Gunta Village, S.Kota Mandal, Vizianagaram District, who are the parents of their daughter Tamala Laxmi who died on 14.11.2013 at about 7.00 PM in an electrical accident in her village. On that day when the said deceased was trying to switch on the light in her house high electricity coming from the board caused electrical shock and injuries as a result of which she fell down on the floor and died on the spot.
It is submitted that the above accident was occurred only due to non-supervision of the excess flow of electricity to the board in the house on the death of accident which clearly shows deficiency of service and dereliction of duties on behalf of the department for heavy supply of electricity. After the accident also, the department people visited the spot of the accident and taken the photos of the board and also taking the photos of the complainants and the concerned Assistant Engineer cut the supply of electricity to the house of the complainants and went away but they have not paid any exgratia to the complainants. After the said accident the also submitted a memorandum to the District Collector on 03.01.2014 for any ex-gratia payment but they have not received any compensation so far.
It is further submitted that the said deceased i.e. Tamala Lakshmi was buried on 15.11.2013 as per their cast custom and the surpanch of the village also visited the spot of the accident. The said deceased aged about 14 years is quite hale and healthy and she was also doing work in her village and used to earn Rs.100/- (Rupees Hundred Only) per day and there by contributing all her earnings to the complainants, who are the parents of the said deceased.
It is also submitted that the complainants got issued a registered lawyer’s notice to the OP’s on 12.02.2014 who having received the same the OP’s neither paid the amount nor replied on the same. Hence this complaint.
Counter filed by the 3rd OP which was adopted by 1st and 2nd OP and denying the allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint except those which are specifically admitted therein and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.
It is submitted that the respondents have been main taining the service wire provided to the house of the deceased properly and as per the rules and norms prescribed there for and on enquiry and personal inspection held by the 3rd respondent it was found that no such incident was reported by anyone in the village either to the respondent departmental officials or to the concerned police station but enquiries revealed the deceased person died due to shock owing to defective internal wiring while operating the internal switch board being maintained by the complainants in their house. Further the said accident must have occurred and only due to defective internal wiring but not due to external service wire or L.T/HT power supply. This the scenario and the circumstances under which the incident occurred on that day clearly shows that absolutely there was no negligence on the part of OP’s are departmental staff in maintaining the lines because the detailed report clearly reveals that the service wire connected to the said domestic service connection is not at all defective and the same was properly maintained by the concerned departmental employees strictly as per the rules and norms prescribed there for and therefore the incident must have resulted due to sheer negligence on the part of the complainants and thereby rule up srict liabilities cannot be invoke nor can be made applicable in any straight of imagination what so ever.
It is further submitted by the OP’s that as per the provisions of electricity act 2003 the complainant did not give notice of occurrence of the said accident to the Electrical Inspector which is mandatory. It is also submitted by the OP’s that there are evidencing document such as FIR, inquest who are or TM certificate etc., and in the inquest there was no whisper about the alleged negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the department of the OP’s. Further even as admitted by the complainants, the deceased sustained shock and died due to defective internal wiring when she was admitting to switch on the light, maintenance of which is not the look out of the department or its supporting staff as per rule-30 (4 of A.P.Elecricity road 1956 since there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of OP’s the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice as there are no merits or bonafides in the claim of the complainants.
Exhibit A1 to A6 are marked on behalf of the complainant and no exhibits were not marked on behalf of the OP’s.
Heard arguments. Posted for orders. The orders are as follows:-
The counsel for both the parties advanced arguments vehemently by reiterating what they have stated in the complaint, counter, evidence affidavits and brief written arguments respectively.
The main contention of the complainant is that the deceased died only due to heavy/excess supply of electricity at the time of the accident which is result of dereliction of duties and deficiency of service on the part of the OP’s, when he deceased Tamala Laxmi was trying to switch on the light in her house, resulting in electrical shock and injuries. In support of their contention they have submitted a citation (III) 2013 CPJ 39 B(CN) (AP) between Alwala Mangamma and others –Appealants Vs Northern power distribution company limited and others – respondenrts in F.A.No.48 of 2012 decided on 20.02.2013 by the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission wherein it was held that it is the electricity department i.e. responsible for garde of electricity passing whether from metre to pole or from pole to pole and it is their duty to see that high rated electricity does not pass in service connection wires which may result in accidental deaths.
The OP’s submitted the citation in support of their contention pronounced on 18.10.2011 by the Hon’ble National Commission in the revision petition No.2312 of 2007 (from the order dated 21.03.2007 in Appeal No.1096/2006 of the said Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka) between The Superintendent Engineer(ELEC), MESCOM Mangalore and others – petitions Vs Sri Krishna Pujari and international cable T.V.Network – respondents held that the State Commission had not even referred to, much less appreciated, the report submitted back the Executive Engineer and Chief Electrical Inspector which clarified with electricity passed not through the cable but rather through the defective electric socket and in his report dated 27.11.2004 the Executive Engineer found that the accident had occurred when kumari Purnima, after switch on the television, was trying to insert the cable socket to the TV and that power leakage was in the TV and not in the cable which was used. Similarly The Chief Electrical Inspector in his report dated 10.01.2005 submitted to the Principal Secretary to the Govermnment of the Karnataka had concluded that the accident occurred due to flow of electricity in the cable socket of the TV which was rendered faulty due to heavy lightening and thunder and he did not find any fault that the installation could by the petitioners. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the report submitted by the Executive Engineer and the Chief Electrical Inspector should be accepted. For the reasons stated above the orders passed by the Fora below cannot be sustained and the same are set a side and the complaint is dismissed that no order as to costs.
The main contention of the OP’s is shat the deceased by only due to defect in the internal wiring of the house but not due to high/excess flow electricity from the service wire connected to the metre on the date of accident. Hence they are responsible for any defects in the internal wiring in the houses of the complainants. Further there is no fault in the service wire coming from the pole connected to the metre or there is no negligence or dereliction of duties or deficiency in service on the part of the OP’s. Further the complainant did not give any notice of occurrence of the said accidents to the Electrical Inspector as per the provisions of electricity act 2003, which is mandatory. The deceased sustained electrical shock and died due to defective internal wiring when she was admitting to switch on the light, maintenance of which is not the look out of the department are its supporting staff as per Rule-30 (4) of A.P.Electricity Road, 1956.
Now the point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service or negligence or dereliction of duties on the part of OP? as seen from the material available on record and the arguments advanced by the both the parties it is evident that the complainant did not give any notice of occurrence of the said accident to The Electrical Inspector as per the provisions of the electricity act 2013 which is mandatory. Further as admitted by the complainants in the letter dated 03.01.2014 addressed to the District Collector. The deceased died due to excel flow electricity into the house and she was are touch the items near to the switch board which gave electric shock which is due to defective internal wiring, and which is not the look out of the department are its supporting staff as per rule-30 (4)of A.P.Electricity Rules 1956.
No evidence could be produced by the complainants to prove that there was excess flow of electricity at the time of occurrence of the said accident from the neighbours or other house holds in the village. No FIR or inquest report who are or medical report who are panchanama was submitted in this Forum about the cause of the accident or in support of the contention of the complainants except mere allegation without any basis or substance.
The citation submitted by the complainants and decided by the Hon’ble State Commission between Alwala Mangamma and others Vs Northern Power Distribution Company Limited and others is not applicable to the facts on hand as the Hon’ble State Commission observed that the deceased came into contact that high grade electricity in service connection portion in between 4 and meter lying in house. Since the present accident occurred due to defect in internal wiring for which the department is not responsible and which is the look out of the complainants. The citation submitted by the OP’s which was delivered by the Hon’ble National Commission as mentioned in the above paragraphs also clearly concluded that the accident occurred due to flow of electricity in the cable socket of the TV which was rendered quality due to heavy lightening and thunder but did not find any fault with the installations could by the petitioners and hence the said decision also goes in favour of the OP’s since the present attitude occur only due to the faulting internal wiring as a result of which the articles which were to be near the switch board gave electric shock to the deceased when she touched the said items.
In view of all the above discussions, we are of the considered view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed without any costs.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed but under the circumstances without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 9th day of February, 2015.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
C.C.No.18 / 2014
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For complainant:- For opposite parties:-
PW 1 RW1 & RW2
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Compainant:-
Ex.A-1 Representation to the District Collector, Vizianagaram by the complainants, Dt.03.01.2014.
Ex.A-2 Xerox copy of the acknowledgement of the Aadhar Card of the deceased, Dt.25.01.2012.
Ex.A-3 Xerox copy of the house hold card, Dt.11.05.2012.
Ex.A-4 Photographs of the deceased.
Ex.A-5 Returned sealed cover under which complainant send legal notice Dt.28.06.12.
Ex.A-6 Office copy of the Regd.Lawyer’s notice got issued by the complainants,Dt.12.02.2014.
For OP’s – NIL -
President
