Between:

1. Boni Ramayyamma, W/o late Satyam, Hindu, 50 years,

House wife residing at Sirikipatem Village, Jami Mandalam,

VIZIANAGARAM.  

1. Boni Appalanaidu, S/o late Satyam, Hindu,

Aged 37 yrs, Employee in Gold Star Company, -rest do-

1. Boni Ammanna, S/o late Satyam, Hindu,

Aged about 34 yrs., -rest do-

1. Boni Errinaidu, S/o Satyam, Hindu, aged about 28 yrs.,

RTC Conductor, -rest do-                                   

                                                                                …Complainants               

And

1. The Chairman and Managing Director,

APEPDCL., Operations, PNT Colony, Seethammadhara,

Visakhapatnam.

1. The Superintending Engineer (Operations),

APEPDCL., Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram.

1. The Assistant Engineer, Operations, APEPDCL.,

Jami, Vizianagaram District.

                                                                            …Opposite Parties

      This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K.Venu Gopal, Advocate for the complainant and Sri P.Venu Gopal Rao, Advocate for O.Ps and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

          This complaint is filed Under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, seeking the relief to direct the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs to the complainants for the death of deceased Satyam in an electrical accident that was occurred on 14-6-2013 at Sirikipalem Village on the following averments.  The 1^st complainant, is the widow and complainants 2 to 4 are the children of the deceased Satyam.  On 14-6-2013 at about 14.30 hours while the deceased was returning home from his fields he came in contact with a cut live electrical wire and sustained electrical shock and burn injuries and fell on the ground.  After the accident he was taken to Government Hospital, Jami where the doctors having examined him and declared that he died.  In the hospital the doctors conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and on a report given by the VRO Jami to the SHO Jami P.S the latter registered a case in crime No.86 of 2013 U/s 174 Cr.P.C.  The Police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and handed over the same to the complainants for cremation.

          As on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 54 years and was hale and healthy and was earning 200/- rupees per day.  The complainants being the widow and children of the deceased are totally depending upon the deceased for their sustenance.  Since the men of O.P’s are in dereliction of duties and as there is deficiency in service on their part in maintaining the electrical live wires, the above said accident was occurred and as such the petitioners are entitled to get the above said sum towards damages.  Hence this complaint.

          The 3^rd respondent filed counter and the same was adopted by respondents 1 and 2.  In the counter the respondents have traversed the material allegations made in the complaint and have averred that there is no consumer and service provider relationship in between the parties and as the complainants did not issue a notice of occurrence to the Electrical Inspector with regard to this accident under the provisions of Electricity Act the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  It is averred that respondent No.3 has received a phone call on 14-6-2013 at 15 hours from the Line Inspector about this accident and has immediately rushed to the place of incident and observed the deceased Satyam met with a non-departmental fatal accident at 16^th LT Pole of SS2 25 KVA and as the deceased touched LT conductor wire lying at low level got electrocuted, in the agricultural fields of Sirikipalem Village.   It is averred that as seen from the contents of report given to police there is no whisper about the negligence of the respondents nor any deficiency of service on their part and as there are no merits in the complaint the same is liable to be dismissed.

          In furtherance of complainants case the affidavit evidence of P.W.1 is filed and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.5 are marked.  Per contra the O.Ps. filed affidavit evidence of R.W.1 and did not get any documents marked on their behalf.

          Now the points for consideration is whether there is negligence and dereliction of duties on the part of O.Ps in this case ?  And whether the complainants are entitled to get Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation for the demise of the deceased Satyam in the above said accident. 

          Before going into the merits of the case we would like to make a mention of the admitted facts.  As seen from the complaint, counter and documents filed on behalf of complainant, it is manifest that on 14-6-2013 at about 14.30 hours while the deceased was coming back from the field he came in contact with a live electrical wire at the same and sustained burn injuries and died.  In Para 6 of the counter it is averred that 3^rd respondent received a phone call on 14-6-2013 at 15 hours from the line Inspector to the fact that a person got electrocuted at Sirikipalem Village of Jami Mandal.  It is further averred that having received the said phone call he rushed to the spot and on enquiry it was observed that one B.Satyam aged 58 years has met with a non-departmental fatal accident at 16^th LT Pole where the conductor from the top of the pole was sagged down to a level of 3 feet from the ground and when the victim touched the wire he got electrocuted in the agricultural fields of Sirikipalem Village.

          In view of the above said admission made by the 3^rd O.P. in his counter it is clear that when the deceased came into contact with live electrical wire which was down to a level of 3 feet from the ground the above said accident was occurred.  Ex.A.2 is the post mortem certificate and Ex.A.3 is the inquest report and as seen from the contents of the said documents it is clear that the deceased sustained burn injuries and died of the same.  The learned advocate for O.Ps. has contended that as there is no whisper in the report given to police or in the inquest report prepared by the police about the negligence of the respondents in maintaining the lines, the O.Ps are not liable to pay compensation to the complainants.

          As against the above said contention the learned advocate for the complainants has contended that the company supplying the electricity is liable for the damages without proof that they had been negligent.

          In a decision in AIR 1920 PC 181 QUEBEE RAILY, LIGHT HEAT AND POWER COMPANY LTD., Vs. VANDRY & OTHERS

Held:  That the company supplying the electricity is liable for the damage without proof that they had been negligent.  Even the defense 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 :-  The Honourable Supreme Court of India 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 11^th 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.  So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous 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 decisions a person undertaking an activity involving Hazardous or risk exposure to human life, is liable under Law of torts to compensate for the injuries suffered by any other person irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of Managers of such undertakings.

It is well settled that if any live electrical wire is cut and fallen on the ground for any reason whatsoever the supply of electric current will be disrupted.  Then it is an indication to the men of O.Ps to immediately act upon and to restore current.  If they fail to act upon to restore the cut wires or the wires that were hanging at a low level, forthwith it amounts to dereliction of duties.  When a live electrical wire is allowed to lie on the ground or is hanging at a low level, even for a little time it would cause damage to the men and cattle who unnoticingly comes in contact with such electric wire.  Hence, a duty is cast upon the O.Ps or their men to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps. 

As seen from the contents of the counter that due to heavy rain and thunders occurred on the previous day the conductor from the top of the pole was sagged down to a level of 3 feet from the ground and as the victim touched the wire he sustained burn injuries.  As the men of O.Ps did not restore back the electrical wires that were hanging to a level of 3 feet from the ground immediately, it can safely be held that there is dereliction of duty and deficiency in service on their part.   Hence, they are liable to pay compensation to the complainants who are the heirs of the deceased. 

 Now the question that falls for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled to get Rs. 5 Lakhs as compensation for the death of the deceased in the said incident.  As per complainants the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.200/- per day.  The complainants did not adduce any cogent evidence to prove the actual earnings and avocations of the deceased.  Even if it is believed that the deceased was doing work and was getting Rs.200/- per day, it cannot be said that he was getting work for all the days in a month.  Since the deceased hails from a village he was not expected to get work for 365 days in an year. 

Hence in the above said facts and circumstances we deem it fit to fix the annual income of the deceased at Rs.45,000/- per annum.  Out of the same a 1/3^rd which comes to Rs.15,000/- can straight away be deducted towards the living expenses of the deceased.  The balance amount of Rs.30,000/- can be taken as annual loss of dependency.  As seen from the material placed on record it is manifest that the age of deceased was 58 years.  Hence the appropriate multiplier is fixed at 8.  When the above loss of dependency if multiplied by the use of appropriate multiplier 8 fixed supra the compensation under the head loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,40,000/-. 

In addition to that a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded for loss of consortium and a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses.  In all the complainants are entitled to get Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation from the O.Ps. 

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the O.Ps. to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only) with interest at 7 ½ % p.a., from the date of this order till realization.  Out of the sum awarded towards compensation a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- (Rupees one lakh and seventy five thousand only) is awarded to the 1^st complainant and a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) is awarded to each of the complainants 2 to 4.  The O.Ps are directed to comply this order within one month from today.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 11th day of September, 2014.

Member                                                                 President

C.C.No.58 of 2013

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainant:-                                   For opposite parties:-

        PW 1.                                                      RW 1.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For complainant:-

Ex.A.1 Xerox copy of FIR dt.14-6-2013

Ex.A.2 Xerox copy Post Mortem Report dt.15-6-2013

Ex.A.3 Inquest Report dt.15-6-2013

Ex.A.4 Death Certificate dt.28-6-2013

Ex.A.5 Copy of Registered Lawyer’s Notice, dt.22.7.2013.

For O.Ps. :-    – NIL –

                                                                                                                                                        President