Date of Filing: 13.09.2011
Date of Order: 20.03.2012
BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.
Dated: 20th DAY OF MARCH -2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. Ramachandra Rao, BSc., B.L, President
Smt. K.G. Shantala, Member
Sri. T. Nagaraja, Member
C.C. NO.194/2011
Mahaboob Pasha,
S/o. Baba Jan,
Aged About 30 years,
R/at: No.14/9, 1st Cross,
BB Road, Kowsar Nagar,
4th Division, Near Purna Pragna School,
Chikkaballapur.
(Rep. by Sri.Ziaulla, Advocate) …COMPLAINANT.,
-V/s-
(1) The Executive Engineer,
BESCOM (Rural),
Siddlaghatta Road,
Chikkaballapur.
(Rep. by Smt.B.S.Vijaya Kumari, Advocate)
(2) Sri. Venkatesh,
Secretary, Poorna Pragna Education Institute,
4th Division, Chikkaballapur.
(Rep.by in person) …..OPPOSITE PARTIES.
ORDER
BY SRI. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant Under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.4,00,000/-, are necessary :-
The son of the complainant by name Zabeeualla aged about 11 years was the student of the 2nd oppsoite party. On 05.06.2010 during the evening hours the said Zabeeualla and his classmates were playing in the school compound and they went to the roof of the First Floor and accidentally the high tension wire of the 1st opposite party touched the body of the Zabeeualla and due to this he sustained injury to his hands and legs. On hearing this the neighbours of the locality took him to Manasa Hospital at Chikkaballapur and informed it to the complainant and after First Aid he was shifted to Victoriya Hospital, Bangalore, wherein he was admitted on 06.06.2010 and died on 07.06.2010. In this regard a case was registered in UDR No.225/2010 against the 1st opposite party and in the Chikkaballapur Police Station after receiving the UDR report registered the case in Crime No.15/2010. Due to negligence of the opposite parties this incident took place and the deceased died. Several correspondences were made with the oppsoite parites regarding compensation, but that not been paid. Hence this complaint is filed.
2(a). In brief the version of the opposite party No.1 are:-
The playing of the child, his death due to electrocution is admitted. Actually all precaution and condition provided to 2nd opposite party with mesh with earthing and power service was provided to ground floor of school building. Due to negligence on the part of the 2nd opposite party school authorities, First Floor was constructed, as such the high tension wire passed on the school building and no building should be constructed, if any power supply is there, that has to be disconnected, but that has not been done. Hence this opposite party is not liable to pay. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
2(b). In brief the version of the opposite party No.2 are:-
The son of the complainant was playing on their house which is adjacent to the school and that the incident took place at his house and he fell down on the school compound and he was treated and died. The 2nd oppsoite party has not violated any conditions. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substatiante their respective cases the complainant has filed his affidavit, the opposite parties have stated that their versions and documents be read as their evidence. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service?
(B) What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
POINT (A) & (B):- As per the detailed order
for the following:-
REASONS
Point (A) & (B):-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the son of the complainant Zabeeulla about 11 years old boy was a student of the school of the 2nd oppsoite party. On 05.06.2010 the son of the complainant was playing on the premises of the school, he went to the 1st floor and the high tension wire drawn on the premises by the 1st opposite party fell on the son of the complainant as a result he sustained burnt injuries. He was taken to the hospital by the neighbours and from there he was taken to Victoria Hospital, Bangalore, and there he died. In this regard in Crime No.225/2010 it has been resisted which states thus:-
That is to say that the deceased while playing got accidentally came in contact with the electrical wires and the deceased was taken to the hospital and from their to Victoriya Hospital, Bangalore where he died. That is to say the deceased did not fall from the compound and died, this allegation of the 2nd oppsoite party is nothing but untenable contention. The 2nd oppsoite party has not witnessed the incident.
7. The Doctors of the Victoria Hospital conducted post mortem and found that the death was due to toxaemia as a result of burn injuries sustained that is the burnt injuries sustained because of electricution and these injuries were antimortem in nature. This clearly goes to show that deceased has died due to electricution and not because of fall.
8. Further it is stated, in the inquest the deceased came in contact with the high tension wire above the school and he died. High tension wire has to be beyond the hight otherwise it will affect the human life and that is the law and that is the guidelines of the KPTCL. The high tension wire coming in contact with the children is most dangerous. The opposite party No.1 should have taken all precautions to cover up the high tension and insulate the high tension wire coming in contact with the children. Since the school building is there but that has not been done.
9. The contention of the opposite party No.1 is that the opposite party No.2 has constructed the 1st floor against the bylaws and that is the cause for this incident. There is no material to show that the opposite party No.2 has constructed the 1st floor without sanctioned plan. If it were to be the opposite party No.1 would have stopped the electricity through that high tension wire immediately at the construction of the 1st floor and would have objected for construction. There is no such allegation. Hence there is deficiency in service and negligence.
10. Reading the judgments of the National Commission and other Commissions reported in IV(2008) CPJ 138, II (2008) CPJ 362, III (2010) CPJ 198, III (2009) CPJ 170, IV (2008) CPJ 332 it is held that if the person suffers any damage because of the electrocution the electrical company has to pay compensation and compensation has to be paid as per claims under the Motor Vehicles Act. Now in this case the deceased was of 11 year old boy there was no earning capacity. Taking in to the judgments of the Apex Court and other High Courts if we order the oppsoite party No.1 to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant we think that will meet the ends of justice. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.2,50,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from 06.06.2010 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. The opposite party No.1 is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this litigation to the complainant.
4. The opposite party No.1 is directed to send the above said amounts as ordered at serial Nos. 2 & 3 above to the complainant by way of DD through RPAD and submit the compliance report along with necessary documents to this Forum within 45 days from the date of this order.
5. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as Under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
6. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 20th Day of MARCH 2012)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
