Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/74/2017

Lakshmidevi W/o Late Onkarappa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Secretary,Karnataka Electricity Board - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.R.Lokeshwarappa

02 Jun 2018

ORDER

 

COMPLAINT FILED ON:13/07/2017

DISPOSED      ON:02/06/2018

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

 

C.C.NO: 74/2017

 

DATED: 2^nd JUNE 2018

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

                   SRI.N. THIPPESWAMY        : MEMBER

                          B.A., LL.B., PGD., CLP  

 

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	1. Lakshmidevi @ Lakshmamma, W/o Late Onkarappa, Age: 45 Years,   2. O. Pradeep, S/o Late Onkarappa Age: Major   3. O. Praveen, S/o Late Onkarappa, Major   All are R/o Gunderi Village, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga.     (Reptd., By Sri. R. Lokeshwarappa, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Chief Secretary, Karnataka Electricity Board, Government of Karnataka, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore. (deleated)   2. The Executive Engineer,     BESCOM, Chitradurga.   3. The Assistant Executive Engineer, BESCOM, Holalkere, Chitradurga.   4. The Section Officer, i.e., The Assistant Executive Engineer, Holalkere, Chitradurga.   (Reptd. By Sri. M. Umesh, Advocate for OP No.2 to 4)

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.12,00,000/- towards compensation with interest @ 12% p.a from the date of incident, Rs.50,000/- towards sufferings and costs and such other reliefs.    

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainant is that, complainant No.1 is the wife and complainant No.2 and 3 are the sons of deceased Onkarappa.  The said Onkarappa was doing coolie and earning Rs.15,000/- p.m and the entire family is depending on his earnings.  On 03.05.2015 at about 8-30 AM, the deceased Onkarappa along with one Krishnappa were went to the areca garden of A.H. Veerabhadrappa and his brother A.H. Nagarajappa for coolie work. The above said A.H. Nagarajappa and A.H. Veerabhadrappa have obtained electric connection to their bore well from the OPs.  On that day, the above said Onkarappa went to the land of above said persons to put up bund.  It is further submitted that, as there is an excess of water, the said Onkarappa went near the bore well starter and stopped, by that time, suddenly he fell down and died at the spot due to electric shock.  Accordingly, Krishnappa informed the complainant at about 9-15 AM about the incident.  After that, the complainant came near the spot and saw the dead body of her husband in the areca garden of A.H. Nagarajappa.  Due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the said Onkarappa was died leaving behind his LRs i.e., the complainants.  The complainant No.2 has lodged a complaint before the Holalkere Police on 03.05.2015 at about 1-00 PM.  In pursuance of the said complaint, the Holalkere Police have inspected the spot and drawn Mahazar and registered a case under Section 174 of IPC in UDR No.19/2015, conducted inquest mahazar and filed final report No.21/2015 on 10.05.2015.  The Medical Officer, General Hospital, Holalkere has conducted P.M. report on 03.05.2015 at about 3-30 PM and opined that, the death is due to cardiac arrest as a result of electrical shock.  The deceased Onkarappa is the only earning member in the family and was earning Rs.500/- per day from the coolie work and the entire amount was contributed to his family.  Due to untimely death of said Onkarappa, the complainants are thrown to street.  Then the complainant has intimated the same to OPs and demanded compensation but, the OPs have not taken any action in this regard.  The deceased had an electric connection to his house and also installed meter by the OPs and therefore, he is also the consumer to the OPs.  The OPs are failed to take any precautionary measures and thereby they have committed deficiency in service.  The OPs have not paid any compensation to the complainants and hence, the OPs are liable to pay the compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- along with interest @ 12% p.a.     The cause action for this complaint arose on 03.05.2015 when the complainant No.2 has lodged a complaint and the OPs have failed to pay the compensation to the complainants which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and prayed for allow the complaint.

3.      After service of notice, OPs appeared through Sri. M. Umesh, Advocate and filed version.   Subsequently, the Advocate for complainant filed a memo and prays to delete the OP No.1.  After deletion of OP No.1, the remaining OPs have filed their version.   According to the version filed by OPs, the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and this Forum has no jurisdiction to deal this matter as it is violation of contract between the OPs and the complainants and hence the question of consumer does not arise.  Further, the alleged incident took place only the negligence on the part of deceased and there is no deficiency of service as against OPs.  Further it is submitted that, the report of Deputy Electrical Inspectorate that, due to rain one day before the alleged incident, the said incident took place.  The OPs are giving service to the panel board and the allegations made in para 2 to 4 are false and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.  Further it is submitted that, the OPs have made to safety measures and inspected properly and hence, the question of negligence and deficiency in service does not arise.  The allegations made in para 7 to 10 are all false.  There is no cause of action for this complaint and the documents produced by the complainant are all created and there is no legal sanctity.  The deceased himself was negligent and due to his own negligence, the said incident took place and hence, prays 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-11 were got marked and closed their side.  On behalf of OPs, one Sri. T.K. Thippeswamy, the Assistant Executive Engineer has examined as DW-1 by filing their respective affidavits and no documents have been got marked and closed their side.     

5.      Arguments heard.

6.      Now the points that arise for our consideration for decision of above complaints are that;

 

1. Whether the complainants prove that, the deceased Onkarappa was died due to electrocution and 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:-  It is not in dispute that, the complainants are the LRs of deceased Onkarappa.  On 03.05.2015 at about 6-30 AM, the above said Onkarappa and Krishnappa were went to coolie work in the land of A.H. Nagarajappa to put up bunds.  By that time, the deceased went near the bore well to stop the same as there was excess of water and suddenly he came in contact with the electric wire and fell down and died at the spot.  Thereafter, the complainant gave a requisition to the OPs claiming compensation but, the OPs have neglected to pay the compensation and they have taken main repudiation that, there is no negligence on the part of OPs and they have further taken a contention that, this Forum has no jurisdiction to deal this matter and there is no any report from the Deputy Electrical Inspector.  The complainant has produced the documents those clearly shows that, due to electrical shock, the said Onkarappa was died and the report submitted by the Deputy Electrical Inspector shows that, one day before the incident, there was heavy rain.  The deceased Onlarappa was having electrical connection to his house and also installed meter and was paying electrical bills to the OPs and therefore, he is a consumer under the OPs.  The complainants have filed this complaint after the repudiation made by the OPs.  The repudiation of the OPs is not sustainable under law.  The OPs have taken a contention, the complaint is barred by time. To condone the delay the complainants have filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.  The reasons quoted in the application is reasonable and the same is condoned.

 

9.      We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainants and OPs which shows that, the deceased Onkarappa was doing coolie work for the last 25 years and he was earning Rs.500/- per day in all a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.m.  The entire family is depending on the income of deceased.  After his death, his family came to street.  The documents produced by the complainants clearly goes to show that, the deceased Onkarappa was died due to electrocution.  The OPs have contention that, the complaint is not maintainable and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  When there is an electric connection, the duty of the OPs is to take precautionary measures to safeguard the public.  Here, they failed to do the same and failed to disprove the case of the complainants that, they have taken precautionary measures.  Ex.A-1 to 11 i.e., FIR, spot mahazar, inquest mahazar etc., clearly shows that, there is a deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Due to the negligence on the part of OPs, the said Onkarappa was died due to electrocution.       Ex.A-2 shows that, “ ¢£ÁAPÀ 03.05.2015 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 8-30 WÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ NAPÁgÀ¥Àà UÀÄAqÉÃj UÁæªÀÄzÀ J.ºÉZï. £ÁUÀgÁd¥Àà gÀªÀgÀ CrPÉ vÉÆÃlPÉÌ §zÀ ºÁPÀ®Ä PÀȵÀÚ¥Àà£À eÉÆvÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ, ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 9-00 WÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è «zÀÄåvï §AzÁUÀ ¨ÉÆÃgï ¸ÁÖmïð DVzÀÄÝ, ¤ÃgÀÄ §AzÁUÀ PɸÀgÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä CrØAiÀiÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ CAvÀ ¨ÉÆÃgï ¤°è¸À®Ä ¸ÁÖlðgï qÀ©âAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃV qÀ©âAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄnÖzÁUÀ DPÀ¹äPÀ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀàµÀð¢AzÀ NAPÁgÀ¥Àà ¸ÀܼÀzÀ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÁۣɔ.  The said document itself supports the case of complainants showing that, the death is due to electrocution.  The Doctor has given his opinion in Ex.A-4 i.e., Post mortem report that “death is due to cardiac arrest as a result of electrocution”.       

As per the available citations of I (2005) CPJ 778 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) – electricity –wires touching balcony of house – minor daughter electrocuted, became physically disabled – failure to maintain minimum distance as per norms of Electricity Act -  deficiency in service proved – O.P. liable to pay compensation and medical expenses – cost awarded.   

 

   As per the Citation of IV (2008) CPJ 139 (NC) in the case of C.G.M., P & O, NPDCL & Ors Vs. Koppu Duddarajam and another wherein it has been held that;

“Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(d), 2(1)(g) and 14(1)(d) – Electricity – Electrocution – Live wire fell on deceased – Severe electrocution and spot death resulted – Villagers pay taxes to Village Panchayats and power consumption charges to electricity company, are consumers – Complainants being beneficiaries entitled to compensation – Complaint allowed by Forum – Order upheld in appeal – No interference required in revision.”

 

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 OPs are liable for payment of compensation to the complainant.   

10.    Then the main question comes before the Forum is that, what is the quantum has to be paid to the complainants.  As per the documents produced by the complainants and as per the recent guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the husband complainant No.1 was succumbed to the electrocution whose age was 56 years, he was an agriculturist and there will earnings from him and on the basis of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we would like to take notional income for an earning member as Rs.84,960/- p.a and age of the deceased is 56 years and as per Sarala Varma’s citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the multiplier will comes to 11.  Then the loss of love affection to the complainants from deceased will be Rs.57,360 X 100% X 11 = Rs.6,30,960/-, to award Rs.1,50,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.50,000/- towards transportation and funeral expenses is to be ordered.  So, in all, the complainants are entitled to get for the amount of Rs.8,30,960/-.

11.    Hence, as discussed above in above paras, we come to the conclusion that, the complainants are entitled to get the compensation of Rs.8,30,960/- from OPs along with interest as they have not taken precautionary measures to cover the live wire and made the deficiency in service in not taking proper steps to safe guard the public interest.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OPs.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.    

  12.     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 complainant U/s 12 of C.P Act 1986 is partly allowed.

It is ordered that, the OP No.2 to 4 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,30,960/- to the complainants along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.

Out of which, the complainant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- 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 complainant No.2 and 3 are entitled for a sum of Rs.2,15,480/- each along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.

It is ordered that, the complainant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and  Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.

It is further ordered that, the OPs are hereby directed to comply the above order within 60 days from the date of this order.

(This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 2/06/2018 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. T.K. Thippeswamy, AEE by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainants:

 

01	Ex-A-1:-	Complaint
02	Ex-A-2:-	FIR
03	Ex-A-3:-	Charge sheet
04	Ex.A-4:	P.M Report
05	Ex.A-5:-	Spot Panchanama
06	Ex.A-6:-	Statement of Krishnappa
07	Ex.A-7:-	Inquest Mahazar
08	Ex.A-8:-	Death Certificate
09	Ex.A-9:-	Voter ID of complainant No.1
10	Ex.A-10:-	Voter ID of complainant No.2
11	Ex.A-11:-	Voter ID of complainant No.3

 

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

-Nil-

 

MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

Rhr**