O R D E R
This is a complainant filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the relief to direct the O.Ps. to pay 5 lakhs towards compensation for the death of deceased Ashok @ Vinodh together with interest at 12% p.a., besides awarding damages for causing mental agony to the complainants on the following averments. The 1st complainant is the widow and complainants 2 to 4 are the children of deceased Vandana Ashok @ Vinodh. On 4-5-2012 at about 2 p.m., while the deceased and 3 others were travelling in an auto bearing No.AP 35V 9974 with load of Mangoes and reached near Dibbagudi Village a high tention electrical wire was lying on the road and when the said auto passed over the said live wire the inmates of the auto sustained electrical shock and as the deceased was holding an iron rod in the auto, he sustained heavy shock and fell on the live electrical wire which was lying on the ground and having received burn injuries he succumbed to the same. After the incident the deceased was taken to Community Health Centre, where the doctors examined and declared that he died and handed over the dead body of the deceased to the complainants for cremation. As there is deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps. in maintaining the live electrical wires the above said accident took place. The complainants got issued Registered Lawyer’s notice to the O.Ps. calling upon them to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs towards compensation and damages and as it did not yield any result, the complaint is filed.
The O.Ps. traversed the material allegations made in the complaint and have averred that the accident was occurred due to heavy gale and wind occurred on 4-5-2012 at early hours upon which the 11 KV Bogavalasa Feeder emanating from 33/11 K.V.SS Saluru, R phase 11 K.V. Conductor was cut and was hanging in the air and at that time the 11 KV Bogavalasa Feeder was tripped due to over load on R.Phase. After 10 minutes 11 KV Bogavalasa Feeder was charged and the supply stood OK. The deceased V.Vinodh Kumar and his relatives 4 in number were proceeding from Jogindravalasa towards Rompalli Village by an auto bearing No.AP. 35 V 9974 with Mango Load, the deceased unnoticingly touched the hanging 11 K.V. wire and got electrocuted and after the accident the dead body of the deceased was taken to PHC Badangi for Post Mortem.
It is averred that the claim of compensation is excessive, imaginary and without any legal basis and as there was no deficiency and dereliction of duties on the part of O.Ps. or their staff the complaint/petition merits no consideration and is therefore liable to be dismissed.
Now the point for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled to get the relief prayed for.
To prove the above said contention the evidence affidavit of 1st complainant is filed. To corroborate the oral testimony, the complainants got marked the material documents as Ex.A.1 to A.5. Ex.A.1 is the copy of FIR in Crime No.49/2012. The said document is filed to prove that after the incident a report was lodged with Rambhadrapuram police who registered the same as case in crime No.49/2012. As seen from the contents of the said report the deceased died due to the burn injuries sustained in the above said incident. Ex.A.2 is the copy of Post Mortam report and as seen from its contents the deceased died due to Cardiorespiratory arrest, secondary to Electric Shock. Ex.A.3 is Death Certificate of the deceased and Ex.A.4 is the Inquest Report and as seen from its contents after a crime was registered the police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and as per the evidence gathered the deceased died due to electrocution. Ex.A.5 is the copy of legal notice and as seen from its contents a demand was made by the complainants to the O.Ps. to pay compensation for the demise of the deceased in the above said accident.
In a decision in AIR 1920 PC 181 QUEBEC RAILWAY, LIGHT HEAT AND POWER COMPANY LTD., Vs. VANDRY & OTHERS “that the company supplying the electricity is liable for the damage without proof that they had been negligent. Even the defence that the cables were disrupted on account of violent wind and high tension current found its way through the low tension cable into the premises of the respondents was held to be not a justifiable defence. Thus, merely because the illegal act could be attributed to a stranger is not enough to absolve the liability of the Board regarding the live wire lying on the road.”
In a decision reported in the case between Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Versus Shail Kumar and others (2002 (2) ALD 4 (SC) as reported in Supreme Court full reports in C.A.No.180 of 2002 decided on the 11th day of January, 2002 it was observed and held in Para 7 and 8:
PARA 7:- It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the board and if the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into, the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the suppliers of the electric energy. Further observation is that so long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangers dimension, the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning of such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road, the electric current there on should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.
PARA 8:- Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risk exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known in law as “strict liability “. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e., the concepts of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.
As seen from the dicta laid down in the above cited decision a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risk exposure to human life is liable under law and torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of Manager for part of such undertakings. As the men of O.Ps. allowed the cut electrical wire lying on the road it amounts to dereliction of duties and deficiency in service. Since the deceased sustained burn injuries and died of the same in the above said incident the complainants being his heirs are entitled to get compensation.
3. 4. 5.
President
2.
For O.P.:-
NIL
