Between:

Gurajapu Appayyamma W/o late Appanna

@ Chinnappanna, Hindu, 50 years,

House wife, Residing at Pathivada Village,

Poosapatirega Mandalam, Vizianagaram District.

Gurajapu Rambabu, S/o late Appanna

@ Chinnappanna, Hindu, 19 yrs., Student,  

Residing at Pathivada Village,

Poosapatirega Mandalam, Vizianagaram District.

                                                                                       ……Complainants

And

1. The Chairman and Managing Director,

APEPDCL., Operations, PNT Colony,

Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam.

2. The Superintending Engineer (Operations),

APEPDCL., Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram.

3. The Assistant Engineer, Operations,

APEPDCL., Parvathipuram,

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.Venugopala Rao, Advocates for O.Ps and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

SRI T. SRIRAMA MURTHY,PRESIDENT

O   R   D   E   R

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the relief to direct the O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for the demise of the deceased Appanna who sustained burn injuries by coming in contact with live electrical pole and to pay costs on the following averments:

          The deceased Appanna was the husband of the 1^st complainant and father of the 2^nd complainant respectively and on 5-6-2014 at about 1800hours while he was grazing cattle in the fields of his village, he came in contact with a wire protecting the electrical pole and having sustained electrical shock and burn injuries, he died on the spot.  After the incident the dead body of the deceased was taken to the hospital for post mortem examination.  On the report given to SHO pusapatirega a case in Crime No.111/2014 under Section 174 of CRPC was registered.  After conducting post mortem examination the dead body of the deceased was handed over to the complainants for crimation.  As on the date of accident the deceased was aged about 58 years and was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.200/- per day and as he died due to electrocution the complainants being his heirs are deprived of his love and affection and support.  Hence the complaint.

          The 3^rd respondent filed counter and the same was adopted by O.Ps 1 and 2 traversing the material allegations made in the complaint and has averred that there is no consumer and service provider relationship in between the parties to this case and as the complainants did not issue a notice as contemplated U/s 33 Electricity Act before filing the case, the complaint is bad in law and is liable to be dismissed.  

          It is averred that as per the enquiry made by their men it came to light that on the previous day of incident, there was heavy gale and wind and as such the peninsulator on the pole came in contact with the adjoining Palmirah leaf thereby the peninsulator was damaged and as the deceased touched the pole he sustained electrical shock and as the incident took place due to the negligence of the deceased the O.Ps are not liable to pay compensation to the complainant.

          It is averred that the men of O.Ps were not in dereliction of duty and as there is no deficiency of service on their part, the complaint merits no consideration and is therefore, liable to be dismissed.

          In support of complainant’s case the affidavit evidence of 1^st complainant is filed and Ex.A.1 to A.4 are marked.   On behalf of O.P, the affidavit evidence of R.W.1 is filed and they did not choose to file any documents on their behalf.  Perused the material placed on record and heard the counsel for both the parties.

Now the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs prayed for ?

          Points: -   The learned counsel for complainant has contended that as the men of O.Ps were in dereliction of their duty, the above said incident took place and as such the complainants being the heirs of the deceased are entitled to get compensation as prayed for.  As against the above said contention the learned advocates for respondents has contended that the men of O.Ps were not in dereliction of duty and as there was heavy gale and wind on the previous day of incident the peninsulator on the pole came in contact with adjoining palmirah leaf and as the peninsulator was damaged there was passage of electricity to the pole and as the deceased negligently came in contact with the pole he sustained injuries and as there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          As seen from the pleadings and evidence filed into the Forum it is manifest that the deceased Appanna died due to electrical shock and burn injuries on the date of incident.  To support the oral testimony of complainants they have filed the FIR, Post Mortem Report, Inquest report and Lawyer’s notice and got the same marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 respectively.  The O.Ps did not dispute the correctness of the above said documents filed into the Forum.  As seen from the contents of the documents it is clear that after the incident a report was lodged with poosapatirega Police in Crime No.111/2014 and sent the dead body of the deceased to the Government Hospital for Post Mortem examination and the police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased and as per the opinion of the elders present at the time of the inquest, the deceased came in contact with an electrical pole and as the electricity was passing to the pole he sustained burn injuries and died on the spot.

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 fault 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.Ps 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.Ps 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 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.

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.

                As seen from the principles laid down in the decision cited supra the suppliers of electricity are responsible to see that no injury is caused to the men and cattle by coming in contact with any live electrical pole or wires.  It is well settled that if the energy transmitted through the electrical wires causes injury or death of a human being who gets un-knowingly trapped into the       primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the suppliers of the electric energy.   Though the O.Ps have taken a plea that there was heavy gale and wind and as such the electrical wires were disrupted and as there was passage of electricity to the pole the incident took place, no evidence is placed to prove the said fact.   Even if it is believed that due to mishap the above said incident took place the O.Ps cannot escape their liability.  Hence, in the above said facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that due to negligent act of the men of O.Ps who did not prevent the passage of electricity to the pole or wire supporting to it the death of deceased was caused and as such they are liable to pay compensation to the complainants.

          The complainants claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation on various grounds for the untime demise of the deceased.  As per complainants the deceased was hale and healthy and was aged about 58 years and was earning Rs.200/- per day as a labourer and was contributing the earnings for the sustenance of the family.  Though they have taken such a pea they did not place cogent evidence to believe the actual avocation and the earnings of the deceased.  Since the deceased and the complainants hails from small villages they are not expected to get manual work on all the days of an year.  Hence, we deem it fit to fix the annual income of the deceased at Rs.45,000/-.  Out of the same a 1/3^rd which comes to Rs.15,000/-  can straight away be deducted towards the personal living expenses of the deceased.  The balance of Rs.30,000/- can be taken as annual loss of dependency.  As per complainants the deceased was aged about 58 years.    Hence the appropriate multiplier is fixed at 8.  When the above annual loss of dependency is multiplied by the use of appropriate multiplier 8 fixed supra, the compensation under the head loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,40,000/- the same is accordingly awarded towards compensation to the petitioners under the head loss of dependency.  In addition to the above said amount, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the 1^st petitioner towards consortion and a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses.  In all the complainants are entitled to get a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for the demise of the deceased Appanna.

          In the result the petition is partly allowed awarding a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest @ 7 % p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realisation recoverable by the petitioners from the O.Ps 1 and 2.  Out of the said compensation the 1^st petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- with accrued interest and the 2^nd petitioner is awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with accrued interest.  The O.Ps are directed to comply the order within 2 months from today.

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the  15^th  day of July, 2015.

Member                                                           President.

C.C. 72 of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

     For P.W.1                                                                  For R.W.1                                                                               

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For complainant:-

1. Ex.A.1 Xerox copy of FIR in Crime No.111/2014 dt.5-6-2014
2. Ex.A.2 Xerox copy of Post Mortem Report dt.6-6-2014
3. Ex.A.3 Xerox copy of Inquest Report dt.6-6-2014
4. Ex.A.4 Copy of Lawyer Notice dt.3-11-2014

         For O.P:-        NIL

                                                                                      President.