This case is coming on for hearing before us in the presence of Sri K.Venu Gopal Advocate for the Complainant and Sri P.V.G.Rao, Advocate for Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 and having stood over for consideration the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
AS PER SRI G.APPALA NAIDU, MEMBER
This complaint is filed U/s-12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking reliefs to pass an award in favour of the complainant and against the OP’s directing the OP’s to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) towards compensation/damages due to the death of Bandaru Chittibabu together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of death till the date of realization and to award damages for the mental agony caused to the complainants, to award costs of the complaint and to grant such other relief or reliefs as Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice on the following averments:-
The complainant is the wife of the deceased Bandaru Chiattibabu S/o late Subbarao who died in the electrical accident occurred on 14.07.2013 with about 6.00 AM in her village and she is the permanent resident of Gajapathinagaram which is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum while the said deceased Bandaru Chittibabu was trying to switch on the motor in his agricultural fields accidentally touched the pipe of the motor as a result of which he got electrical shock due to the heavy passage of electricity through the motor pipe to the said Bandaru Chittibabu who got electrical shock and burn injuries and fell down on the floor and died on this spot.
Immediately after the said accident he was shifted to Government Hospitals at Gajapathinagaram where the address declared that he was already did due to electrocution and after Post Mortem and inquest, the body was handed over to the complainant for funeral and obsequies. The above said accidents was occurred only due to the high power supply came to the motor pipe of the complainants agricultural motor which clearly shows the deficiency of service and dereliction of duties on behalf of the employees of the department.
It is submitted that on a report given by the Village Revenue Officer to the Gajapathinagaram Police Station the registered said accident in crime No-62/2013 Under Section-174 of CRPC. The deceased Bandaru Chittibabu was aged about 30 years of Who was hale and healthy before the accidents and he was working as technician in Singapore Port Trust by earning Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) per month. It is further submitted that the deceased was recently married and the complainant lost the consortium at her age being the wife last her husband at engage in the said accident.
It is also submitted that the deceased Chittibabu recently came from Singapore on two months leave only for his marriage purpose and also doing some help to his brother at Gajapathinagaram and while he was ready to live Gajapathinagaram to Singapore within a short time, the accident was occurred, which was due to non-supervision of the excess flow of electricity to the motor on the date of accident, which clearly shows deficiency of service and dereliction of duties on the part of the department for heavy supply of electricity. After the aforesaid accident the departmental people visited the spot of the accident but did not pay any ex-gratia to the complainant even though the OP’s received the registered lawyer’s notice from the complainant. Hence This complaint.
Counter filed by the 3rd OP which was adopted by 1st and 2nd OP’s denying the allegations leveled by the complainant except those which are specifically admitted therein and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same. It is submitted by the OP’s that the complainant suppressed the circumstances of the case and the allegation that factual due to excess flow of electricity on that fatetul date the incident occurred, is all parts, a blatant lie which all must have been invented by the complainant with an evil motive of extracting money by illegal means and methods. Further the complainant did not inform the OP’s or subordinate staff at any time regarding the alleged accident and no such complaints were received from any individuals of the said area regarding the alleged occurrence that too due to excess flow of electricity. If the any such accident in fact had agreed due to excess load of electricity-other residents of the area also should have been effected and suffered. Even interalia in case, any such accident had occurred due to defective maintenance of motor and the GI pipe got erected by the individual concerned in their agriculture fields they alone shall be held responsible there for but not the respondents or their supporting staff.
Immediately after receipt of information, departmental staff and the Assistant Engineer of Gajapathinagaram inspected the seen of occurrence and observed that the said deceased found dead in his agriculture fields. It was also observed by them that the service wire connected from pole to the main service connection was intact and not damaged as such, it was reported that the death might have been resulted due to defective maintenance of internal motor and GI pipe connected through for which the department is in no way concerned. Therefore there was no negligence or dereliction of duties on the part of the OP’s and hence they cannot recommend the case have even for payment of ex-gratia.
In the brief written argument filed by the OP’s it was stated that the statement of the individuals namely Sri V.Apparao, Juthada Chitti Babu and Allu Appala Swamy clearly shows that they are the neighbouring land owners having motor connections situated around the motor service connection alleged to her involved in the accident and their statements clearly disclose that on that day i.e. 14.07.2013, no excess flow of electricity was there to the respective motors and their motors are working properly and no damage was 3rd to their motor connections since there was no passage of high voltage or excess flow of electricity on the said date.
Exhibits A1 to A11 are marked on behalf of the complainant and exhibits B1 to B7 are 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 reiterating what they have stated in the complaint, counter, evidence affidavits and brief written arguments respectively.
The main contention of the complainant is that her deceased husband died on 14.07.2013 due to electrical accident in the agriculture field as a result of electrocution due to high power supply/excess flow of electricity to their motor on the date of accident which clearly shows the deficiency of service and dereliction of duties on the part of OP’s. In support of the complainants contention the following citation IV(2012 CPJ 476(NC) between CSHIN Haryana Bijali Vitran with the AM Limited and others-petitioners Vs Bansingh-respondent where in it was held that agricultural land with electrical tube well connection-electrocution-death due to electric shock – occurred when the respondent was constructing the water tank at the above said agricultural land after completion of which the deceased entered into the tubewell room but the main wire between the tube well motor and the transfer was lying naked at some places due to which the deceased suffered an electric shock and was the gripped by the electric wire and hence compensation was rightly ordered.
The main contention of the OP’s is that on the day of accident there was no high load of power or excess flow of electricity which was also confirmed by the statements of the individuals namely Sri V.Apparao, Juthada Chittibabu and Allu Appala Swamy which clearly shows that they are the neighbouring land owners having motor connections situated around the motor service connection of the deceased person and they further disclosed that on the day of the aforesaid accident i.e.14.07.2013, no excess of electricity was there to their respective motors which were working properly and no damage was caused to their motor connections and also there was no passage of high voltage or excess flow of electricity on the said date.
Further it was reported by their Assistant Engineer and departmental staff who inspected the seen of occurrence after receipt of information, it was reported that the death might have been resulted due to defective maintenance of internal motor and GI pipe connected their for which they are not responsible in any way.
Now the point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service or dereliction of duties on the part of OP’s? Even though the post mortem certificate reveals that the cause of death is electric shock and the resultant cardio respiratory arrest panchanama reveals that while the deceased switched on the motor he touched the iron tube/pipes attached to the said motor resulting in electric shock. The paper report dated 15.07.2013 speaks that when the said motor could not on when tried the deceased went to the near by pond not order to pour water to the motor for switch on, suddenly he fell down due to electric shock.
Since the evidence produced by the OP from the neighbouring three ryths who also have motor connections confirms that there was no excess flow of electricity or high voltage on the fateful day of the accident and there was also no damage to their motors on the said date further to the fact that the electric shock occurred to the deceased is only due to the mishandling of the switch and motor and negligence on the part of the complainant when due record to the precautions to be followed. The principles laid down in the citation submitted by the complainant are also not applicable in this case. Further there was also no fault in the service wire from the pole to the meter.
In view of all the foregoing discussions, no deficiency of service/dereliction of duties on the part of OP is established. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
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 10th day of February, 2015.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
C.C.No.08 / 2014
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINE
For complainant:- For opposite parties:-
PW 1 RW1 & RW2
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For Compainant:-
Ex.A-1 Copy of First Information Report in Crime No.62/2013 of Gajapathi Nagaram Police Dt.14.07.2014.
Ex.A-2 Inquest report of the said Bandaru Chitti Babu, Dt.14.07.2013.
Ex.A-3 Postmortem report of the Bandaru Chitti Babu, Dt.14.07.2013.
Ex.A-4 Paper cutting of Vartha, Dt.15.07.2013.
Ex.A-5 Passport with Singapore Visa stamping of the diseased,Dt.24.07.2001.
Ex.A-6 Renewal Passport, Dt.23.05.2011.
Ex.A-7 Work permit of the diseased, Dt.18.10.2011.
Ex.A-8 Xerox copy of air ticket from Singapore to Visakhapatnam, Dt.15.05.2013.
Ex.A-9 Safeety incentive award to the diseased.
Ex.A-10 Copy of Register Lawyer Notice, Dt.08.01.2014.
Ex.A-11 Copy of A.P.E.P.D.C.L.
For OP’s
Ex.B-1 Copy of showing the L.T.Sketch of Gajapathinagaram.
Ex.B-2 Copy of Motor Pumpset.
Ex.B-3 Copy of Motor Pumpset.
Ex.B-4 Copy of Motor Pumpser.
Ex.B-5 Copy of Motor Pumpset Photograph.
Ex.B-6 Lawyer’s Notice.
Ex.B-7 Acknowledgement Copy.
President
