Between:

1.Dasari Satyavathi W/o late Narayana Swami,Hindu,

  aged 35 years, Residing at Gumadam Village,

  Salur Mandalam, Vizianagaram District.

2.Dasari Srinu, S/o late Narayana Swami, Hindu,

  Aged 20 Years, Student, Rest do.

3.Dasari Jaya Lakshmi, D/o late Narayana Swami,

  Hindu, aged 19 years, Student, Rest do.

4.Dasari Tirupathi Rao, S/o late Narayana Swami,

  Hindu, aged 12 years,  Student, Rest do.

  (being minor represented by mother

  and guardian of my 1^st client)

5.Dasari Gangamma, W/o late Kuramayya,

  Hindu, aged 61 Years, House Wife, Rest do. 

                                           … Complainants   

And

1.The Chairman and Managing Director,

  A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Operations,

  PNT Colony, Seethammadhara,

  Visakhapatnam.

2.The Superintending Engineer (Operations),

  A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram.

3.The Assistant Engineer, (Operations),

  A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Saluru,

  Vizianagaram District.

                                       … Opposite Parties

     This case is coming on for hearing before us in the presence of Sri K.Venu Gopal, Advocate for the Complainants and Sri P.Venugopala Rao Advocate for the O.P’s No.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 C.P.Act, 1986  seeking  relief to pass an award in favour of the complainants and against the O.P’s directing them to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation/damages due to the death of Dasari Narayana swamy as a result of the electrical accident together with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the said accident till the date of realization and also 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 Honourable Forum deems fit under the circumstances of the case on the following averments:-

     The 1^st complainant is the wife and the complainants 2 to 4 are the children and the 5^th complainant is the mother of the deceased Dasari Narayana Swamy S/o Kuramayya who died in an electrical accident on 06.04.2014 at about 6.00 hours in his village.  On the said sad day when Dasari Narayana Swamy while cutting the branch of “Pachi” tree in the fields of Varri Jagannadham for feeding his sheep accidentally touched the Hi-tension electrical wires to the said deceased as the said wires for passing in very low manner and in the middle of the tree and as a result he got electrical shock and burn injuries and fell down on the earth and died on the spot.  Immediately after the said accident he was referred to community health center, Salur where the doctor declared that he was already dead due to the electrical shock and burn injuries.  After inquest and post mortem, the body was handed over to the complainants for cremation.  S.H.O, Salur town police registered the above case in Cr.No.63/2014 and section-174 CRPC.

     It is submitted by the complainants that the said accident occur on the fateful day due to the deficiency of service and dereliction of duties on behalf of the employees of the electrical department since the O.P’s are the masters of the employees having got joint and several liabilities in the aforesaid accident.  It is further submitted the deceased Dasari Narayana Swamy was aged about 40 years and was quite hale and healthy before the accident, who used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month as an employee in A.P.Fibers Limited, Jeegaram village of Salur Mandal, Vizianagaram District.  However after the said accident also the O.P’s did not pay any ex-gratia to the complainants.  It is further submitted that the above mentioned accident occurred only due to the gross negligence, dereliction of duties and deficiency of service on the part of the employees of the electrical department who have not supervise the Hi-tension electrical wires passing in a very low manner in the middle of the tree in the fields of Varri Jagannadham on the date of the accident.  The complainants also furnished the brake-up of the claim regarding compensation in respect of the accident as follows:-

1.Compensation for funeral expenses,

transport                                  Rs.    20,000.00

2.Compensation for loss of consortium

Caused to the 1^st complainant               Rs.    15,000.00

3.Compensation for loss of Dependency

under loss caused to the estate of the

deceased and income of the deceased

to the family for the present and future.  Rs.  9,65,000.00

         Total compensation                Rs. 10,00,000.00                  (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only)           

     It is also submitted that the 1^st O.P. is looking after the distribution, consumption and supply of electricity in and around three districts i.e., Srikakulam, Vizianagaram, Visakhapatnam and 2^nd O.P. is officer of the department and 3^rd O.P. is the area Assistant Engineer where the accident occurred and the said O.P’s are necessary parties in the above accident having joint and several liability for the above accident.  Hence this complaint.

     Counter filed by the 3^rd OP which was adopted by 1^st and 2^nd O.P’s traversing the material allegations leveled by the complainants in this complaint except those which are specifically admitted therein and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.

     It is submitted that as per the departmental enquiries made by them and the subordinate staff concerned it is leveled that the deceased while cutting the three branches situated adjacent to 33KV feeder at salur which is eminating from 132/33 KV feeder sub station, Bobbili a branch of the tree was cut and fallen on R-Phase conductor which was consequently burnt as a result of which the deceased fell down and died on the spot due to electrification.  Thus it is pleaded that apparently there is no fault or dereliction of duties on the part of departmental staff and hence they are not at all liable to pay anything towards compensation to the complainant.  The allegation of the complainants that there was over hanging of HT electrical wires on thereby the deceased accidentally touched the wires passing through in a low level extra is of a sheer and blatent lie as well as a ground created and planted by the complainants for the purpose of the case because as cut be observed from the inquest report contents of the FIR and Post mortem report, here is no whisper about the alleged negligence or dereliction of duties on the part of O.P’s or their subordinate staff.  It is further submitted that there are no merits or bonafides in the claim of the complainants and also there is no cause of action for the complainants to claim any compensation against the O.P’s, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs in the interest of justice since the complaint is created a only for the purpose of filing and being devoid of any merits.

     Exhibits A1 to A7 are marked on behalf of the complainants and no exhibits are marked on behalf of the O.P’s.

     Heard arguments.  Posted for orders.   The orders are as follows:-

     The counsel for both the parties advanced arguments by reiterating what they have stated in the complaint, counter, Evidence Affidavits are brief written arguments respectively.

     The main contention of the complainants is that the deceased Dasari Narayana Swamy died due to electrical accident and burn injuries as the Hi-tention electrical wires are passing on a very low manner which touched the said deceased while he was cutting a branch of the tree and fell down immediately and died on the spot as a result of the deficiency in service, dereliction in duties and negligence on the part of the employees/the electrical department, had not supervised the electrical lines properly.

     The main contention of the O.P’s is that there is no consumer and service provider relationship between the deceased and the O.P’s and also no notice of occurrence of the accident was given by the complainants to the electrical inspector, which is mandatory as per the provisions and section-33 of I.E.Act, 1930.  The other contention of the O.P’s is that as per the departmental enquiries made by the Assistant Engineer as well as the subordinate staff concerned it reveals that the deceased while cutting the tree branches situated adjacent to 33 KV feeder at Salur which is eminating from 132 by 33 KV feeder sub station, Bobbili, a branch of the tree was cut and fallen on R-Phase conductor which was consequently burnt as a result which the deceased fell down and died on this spot due to electrofication. But there is no fault or dereliction of duties or negligence on the part of the departmental staff and the respondent.  Further the complaint filed is created and planted by the complainant only for the purpose of claiming compensation even though there is no deficiency of service or negligence or dereliction of duties on the part of O.P’s or their subordinate staff. Now the point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service or negligence on the part of O.P’s and whether the complainants are entitled to reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

     As seen from the material placed on record it is manifest that the deceased having sustained electrical shock and burn injuries died on the spot.  The counsel for the complainant has contended that due to dereliction of duty and efficiency of service on the part of men of O.P’s, the said accident took place.  As against the above said contention the land advocate for the O.P’s has contended that due to the negligence of the deceased the above said accident was occurred and as the men of O.P’s were not in dereliction of duties, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Further contention of the advocate for the O.P’s is that the complainants have not given the notice of occurrence of the accident to the electrical inspector, which is mandatory as per the provisions of section-33 of Indian Electricity Act, 1910 and also contended that the dispute is not a consumer dispute as the complainants are not consumers within the definition of section-2 (D)(I)or to (O) of the C.P.Act, 1986.

     However the fact remains that the deceased died due to electrical shock and burn injuries:-

                As per Rule-29 of the Indian Electricity Rules, All electric supply lines and apparatus shall be of sufficient ratings for power, insulation and estimated current and of sufficient mechanical strength, for the duty which they may be required to perform under the environmental conditions of installation, and shall be constructed, installed, protected, worked and maintained in such a manner as to ensure safety of human beings, animals and property.  

     As per Rule-30 of the Indian Electricity Rules: The supplier shall ensure that all electric supply lines, wires fittings and apparatus belonging to him or under his control, which are on a consumer’s premises are in a safe condition and in all respects fit for supplying energy and the supplier shall take due precautions to avoid danger arising on such premises from such supply lines, wires, fittings and apparatus.

     2) Service-lines placed by the supplier on the premises of a consumer which are underground or which are accessible shall be so insulated and protected by the supplier as to be secured under all ordinary conditions against electrical, mechanical, chemical or other injury to the insulation.

     As seen from the above rules it is manifest that for the general safety a duty is caste upon the suppliers of electricity to take all measures to ensure safety of human beings, animals and property.          

     As per Rule 46: Where an installation is already connected to the supply system of the supplier, every such installation shall be periodically inspected and tested at intervals not exceeding five years either by the Inspector or any officer appointed to assist the Inspector or by the supplier as may be directed by the State Government in this behalf or in the case of installations belonging to, or under the control of the Central Government, and in the case of installation in mines, oil-fields and railways, by the Central Government.

     As seen from the above said rules the men of O.P’s are constrained to make periodical inspection and to test the electrical supply lines and apparatus on consumer’s premises to prevent damage to men and cattle.

     Coming to case on hand no cogent evidence is adduced on behalf of the O.P’s to prove that their men have periodically inspected or tested the electrical lines and apparatus to see that they are in proper condition.

In a decision reported:- The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case between Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Versus shall 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 admiatted 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.

     In a decision in AIR 1920 PC 181 between 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 defence that the cable 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 in 2008 (4) CPR 488(NC)Executive Engineer, Electricity distribution division and others Vs Budhan wherein it is held:-

     Falling of live wire of electricity on somebody causing his death amounts to deficiency in service on part of electricity department.  Coming to the case on hand though the deceased and his family members did not pay any consideration for availing services of the men of OP’s, the fact remains that the death of deceased was caused due to hanging of a live electrical wire which came in contact with the umbrella which the deceased holding at the time of incident.

     In view of the dictum laid down in the decision cited supra as the live electrical wire caused the death of the deceased there is any amount of deficiency in service on the part of men of OP’s.  In a decision in 1 (2013) CPJ 159 in between Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd Vs Parthu and another wherein it is held:-

     Supplier of electricity is under statutory obligation to maintain all of its lines and equipments etc., in such condition so as to ensure that no one comes into direct contact of such lines or equipments resulting into mishaps.

     As seen from the principles laid down in the decisions cited supra it is manifest that the company supplying the electricity is liable for the damages without proof that they had been negligent.  On the other hand the OP’s are negligent as a did not make periodical inspection to see that the electric supply lines and wires are in proper condition in all respects for supplying energy without damages to the human beings animals and property. 

     However as seen from the material placed on record and the facts and circumstances reported there on and the arguments advanced by both the party it is also clearly established that there is contributory negligence on the part of the deceased who climbed/sealed the “Pachi” tree for cutting the branches to feed the sheep/goats in a negligent and careless manner though the Hi-tension electrical wires are passing nearby.

     As seen from the pleadings, Inquest/Panchanama and FIR, the deceased is aged about 40 years.  Hence, as he is a kalasi in Andhra Pradesh Fibers Limited, Gumadam, Salur, we would like to accept his annual earnings at Rs.48,000/- since the complainant did not adduce any cogent evidence to prove his annual earnings and out of the said sum a one third which comes to Rs.16,000/- can straight away be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased.  Since the age of the deceased is about 40 years, the proper multiplier is fixed at 16.  When the above annual loss of dependency is multiplied by the appropriate multiplier i.e. 16, the loss of income for the remaining span of life works out to Rs.5,12,000/- (Rs.32,000x16).  In addition to that a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards consortium and another sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses.  However as there is a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased as evident from the material placed on record and the facts and circumstances reported the loss of dependency works out of Rs.2,50,000/- i.e. 50% of Rs.5,12,000/-.  As the electricity department i.e. APEPDCL reported that they are considering ex-gratia payment of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation or loss of dependency the same is accepted under the circumstances of the case on hand.

    In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the OP’s 1,2,3 jointly and severally to pay to the complainants a total sum of Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees One Lakh and Sixty Thousand Only)i.e.(Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) towards compensation for loss of dependency Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards consortium and Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards funeral expenses) out of which the 1^st complainant is entitled to Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy Thousand Only), the 5^th complainant is entitled to Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only), and the complainants 2 to 4 are entitled to Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each.  The 4^th complainant being minor, his share of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) shall be deposited in a nationalized/Scheduled commercial bank until he attains majority and in the mean time the 1^st complainant being mother and guardian of the 4^th complainant is entitled to receive the interest there on for his maintenance.  The OP’s are further directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand Only) towards costs of the complaint which includes advocate fee of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only).  This order shall be complied within 40 days from the date of this order.   

      Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 29th day of April, 2015.

MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

C.C.No.57 / 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For complainant:-                   For opposite parties:-

PW 1                                   RW1  &  RW2

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Compainant:-

Ex.A-1 First Information report of Salur Town Police in

   Crime No.63/2014 U/s174 CRPC, Dt.06.04.2014.      

Ex.A-2 Post Mortem report of Dasari Narayana

   Swami, Dt.06.04.2014.

Ex.A-3 Inquest report of the deceased Dasari Narayana

   Swami, Dt.06.04.2014.

Ex.A-4 Death Certificate of Dasari Narayana Swami,

   Dt.19.04.2014.

Ex.A-5 Legal Hair Certificate, Dt.03.07.2014.

Ex.A-6 Muster of Dasari Narayana Swami.

Ex.A-7 Copy of Layer Notice, Dt.20.08.2014.

For OP’s –NIL-

                                              President