Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/213/2018

Smt.N.H.Renuka w/o Late Eshwarappa.S - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Engineer,O & M Bescom - Opp.Party(s)

Sri.B.Ashok

10 Jan 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:22/10/2018

DISPOSED      ON:10/12/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

 

C.C.NO:213/2018

 

DATED: 10^th JANUARY 2019

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

SMT.JYOTHIRADHESHJEMBAGI  : MEMBER

                        BSc., MBA., DHA.,

……COMPLAINANT/S	1. Smt N.H.Renuka, W/o Late Eshwarappa.S, Aged about 38 Years, Household.   2. Sri Varun.E, S/o Late Eshwarappa.S, Aged about 18 Years, Student.   3. Sri Dyanesh.E, S/o Late Eshwarappa.S, Aged about 16 Years, Student. Minor, Represented by Natural Guardian Mother, Smt N.H.Renuka, W/o Late Eshwarappa.S, Aged about 38 Years,   All are Resident of  K.K.Hatti, Bokikere Village, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District.   (Reptd. By Sri.B. Ashok Kumar, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTIES	1. The Executive Engineer, Operation and Maintenance, BESCOM, Rural sub Division, Hosadurga, Chitradurga District.   2. The Executive Engineer (Elec) Operation and Maintenance, BESCOM, Chitradurga.   3. The Superintending Engineer (Elec), Operation and Maintenance, BESCOM, Chitradurga. 4. Sri. Hanumanthappa, S/o Anjunappa, Major, BESCOM Officer, Hosadurga, Chitradurga District.   (Complaint against OP No.4 dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2018)   (Reptd. By Sri.T.K. Chandrasheekara Rao, Advocate for OP No.1 to 3)

ORDER

SRI. T.N. SREENIVASAIAH:   PRESIDENT

The above complaint has been filed by the complainants u/Sec.12 of the C.P Act, 1986 for the relief to direct the OPs to pay Rs.18,00,000/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 18% p.a, Rs.50,000/- towards damages for physical and mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards costs  and such other reliefs.   

2.      The brief facts of the case of the above complainants is that, they are the permanent residents of Bokikere village, Hosadurga Taluk, Chitradurga District.  OP No.1 to 3 are the service providers with respect to the electrical supply to the consumers and their duty bound is to take care of the safety measures to safeguard the interest of electricity users.  OP No.4 is the employee of OP No.1 to 3, he deputed for maintenance for the maintenance of the electric lines.  It is submitted that, on 08.03.2015 at about 5-45 PM, one Eshwarappa who is the husband and children of the complainant No.1 and complainant No.2 and 3 respectively heard the heavy noise from the electric lines drawn in the village.  At that time, he tried to switch off his TV, while he switch off the TV, immediately he electrocuted and succumbed to the death on the spot as the electric line drawn in his village are cut down on the earth due to the negligence on the part of OPs.  After the accident, a Criminal case was registered in Hosadurga Police Station in Crime No.57/2015 against the OPs.  During the life time, the deceased Eshwarappa was the teacher and also an agriculturist and he was earning monthly income of Rs.50,000/- and the complainants are depending on the income of deceased.  At the time of death, the said Eshwarappa was aged about 40 years.  It is submitted that, the OP No.1 to 3 are the electric suppliers and also duty casted upon the OPs to maintain the same in good condition, but they failed to maintain the electric line in good condition, so, the death of deceased Eshwarappa is due to negligence on the part of OP No.1 to 3.  It is further submitted that, on 01.09.2018, the complainants have issued legal notice to the OPs through their counsel to settle the claim, the OPs have given reply to the notice, the same is not in accordance with law, thereby the OPs have committed deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  The incident was took place in Chitradurga District, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  The cause of action for this complaint arose on 08.03.2015 i.e., on the date death of said Eshwarappa due to electrocution, which is within the jurisdiction of this Forum and prayed for allow the complaint.

3.      After service of notice, OP No.1 to 3 appeared through Sri. T.K. Chandrashekar Rao, Advocate and filed version. In view of the memo filed by the Advocate for complainant, the complaint as against OP No.4 is dismissed vide order dated 21.12.2018.  No.4one Sri.M.C. Thippeswamy, Advocate appeared and filed version. 

According to the version filed by OP No.1 to 3 is that, they are the service providers with respect to supply of electricity to the consumers.  It is not in dispute that, their duty bound is to take care of the safety measures to safeguard the interest of electricity users.  It is submitted that, they have taken all safety measures with regard to outside the premises of consumer house.  As per the Electricity Act and Rules, the consumers should install proper safety operatous within the house.  Since complainants failed to install proper operatous in the house to prevent sudden surge of heavy electrical voltage due to natural calamities, this accident is occurred.  Therefore, the OPs are not responsible for this accident and not liable to pay any compensation to them.  It is further submitted that, OP No.4 is the employee of OP No.1 to 3, is required to supervise the electrical lines falling outside the premises of the complainants is false, since the accident was occurred inside the house.  It is not to their knowledge that, on 08.03.2015 at about 5-45 PM one Eshwarappa tried for switched off the TV for safety, he touched the TV switched and immediately he electrocuted and succumbed to death on the spot till it was reported by the public to the OPs and also it was not within the knowledge to them till it was reported by the public.  The averments of the complainant that, a Criminal Case No.57/2015 was registered against OPs is not within their knowledge and it is false to state that the OPs are negligent and there is a deficiency of service.  It is false to     during the life time, the deceased Eshwarappa was the teacher and also an agriculturist and he was earning monthly income of Rs.50,000/- and the complainants are depending on the income of deceased and the complainants are put to strict proof of the same.    The averments made in para 6 that, the OP No.1 to 3 are the electric suppliers and also duty casted upon to maintain the same in good condition is not in dispute, but it is false to state that, the OPs failed to maintain the electric line in good condition.  It is further submitted that, on 08.03.2015 at about 5-40 PM due to heavy wind, rain and thunder bolt and lightening, the electric wires drawn on the poles came in contact with each other and there was a short circuit as a result, heavy voltage and lead to cut down of the electric wires, the same is a natural calamity and on act of God which cannot be prevented by human efforts.  If proper operatus were installed as per Indian Electricity Act and Rules and BESCOM distribution code, this high voltage surged in the house could have been prevented.  Hence, there is a lapse by complainants to install proper MCB/ULCB Limiter/fuse control as per the Indian Electricity Act and Indian Electricity Rules and BESCOm Supply Distribution Code, therefore, the OPs are not responsible for this accident as there is no negligence on the part of OPs and therefore, prayed for dismissal of this complaint.

4.      The complainant No.1 herself has examined as PW-1 by filing affidavit evidence and the documents Ex.A-1 to A-12 were got marked and closed their side.  On behalf of OP No.1 to 3 one Sri. H. Thirupathi Naik, Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele) has examined as DW-1 and Ex.B-1 to B-3 documents marked 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, OP No.1 to 3 have committed deficiency in service in maintaining the electrical line properly and they are responsible for the death of deceased Eshwarappa by electrical shock 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, on 08.03.2015 at about 5-45 PM, the deceased Eshwarappa while he tried to switch off the television in his house, by that time suddenly he electrocuted and succumbed to the death on the spot.  The said Eshwarappa was a Teacher and also an agriculturist and his family is depending upon the earnings.  During his life time, he was earning Rs.50,000/- p.m.  He was aged about 40 years at the time of death due to electrocution.  OP No.1 to 3 are the electric suppliers to the consumers and their duty is to maintain the electric wires properly.  After the accident, the complainants have lodged a complaint before the concerned Police and the Police have registered a case against the OPs.  Complainants also intimated the same to OP No.1 to 3.  Due to the negligence act of OP No.1 to 3, the said Eshwarappa was died due to electrocution.  But, OP No.1 to 3 have denied that, they have not neglected in installing the electric line in the village and maintaining the same properly. 

9.      It is argued by the Advocate for complainant that, the OP No.1 to 3 have not maintained the electric wire and they have not taken any care in maintaining the same.  No doubt, Eshwarapap, aged about 40 years was died due to electrocution while he tried to switch off the TV on 08.03.2015 in his house.   The version filed by OP No.1 to 3 clearly shows that they have supplied electricity to the house of complainants.  On 08.03.2015 at about 5-40 PM there was heavy wind, rain and thunder bolt and lightening, the electric wires drawn on the poles came in contact with each other and there was a short circuit as a result, heavy voltage and lead to cut down of the electric wires, the same is a natural calamity and on act of God which cannot be prevented by human efforts, if proper operatus were installed as per Indian Electricity Act and Rules and BESCOM distribution code, this high voltage surged in the house could have been prevented.  There is a lapse on the part of complainants to install proper MCB/ULCB Limiter/fuse control as per the Indian Electricity Act and Indian Electricity Rules and BESCOM Supply Distribution Code, therefore, the OPs are not responsible for this accident as there is no negligence on their part.   It is argued by the complainant that, when the deceased Eshwarappa touched the TV switch to switched off for safety measures, suddenly he was electrocuted and died at the spot due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 to 3.  According to OP No.1 to 3, the mistake is committed by the complainants as they have not followed the Electricity Act and Rules.  No doubt, it is an admitted fact that, Eshwarappa was died due to electrocution in his house while he tried to switch off the TV.  

  10.  We have gone through the entire documents filed by the complainants and OPs.  After going through the documents it clearly shows that, on 08.03.2015, the husband of complainant No.1 by name Eshwarappa was died due to electrocution in his house.  The same has been intimated to the OPs.  The concerned Police have also inspected the spot and drawn mahazar.  According to OP No.1 to 3 they have not committed any deficiency of service in installing the electrical wire and Advocate for OP No.1 to 3 has argued that, the mistake is only on the part of deceased himself in erecting the electrical connection to his house.  Here the case is on hand that, anyhow, the OP No.1 to 3 have accepted that, the death is due to electrical shock.  As per the documents produced by the complainants and OPs clearly shows that, the deceased Eshwarappa was died due to electrical shock in his house due negligence in maintaining the electric line properly by the OP No.1 to 3. 

As per the available citations of I (2005) CPJ778in 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.”

 

12.    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 OP No.1to 3are liable for payment of compensation to the complainants.   

13.    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 deceased was succumbed to the electrocution whose age was 40 years, he was a teacher and also agriculturist to eke out livelihood and his family is depending upon his earnings.  On the basis of the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we would like to take notional income for a earning member i.e., he was taking net salary of Rs.22,107/- p.m as per the salary certificate issued by the Education Department , in all a sum of Rs.2,68,884/- p.a and age of the deceased is 40 years and as per Sarala Varma’s citation of Hon’ble Supreme Court, the multiplier will comes to 15.  Then after deducting 1/3 of his income towards his personal expenses, the amount will be Rs.88,428 X 15 = 13,26,420/-, for loss of love and affection to the complainants from the deceased, transportation and funeral expenses respectively will be Rs.70,000/-. So in all, the complainant is entitled to get for an amount of Rs.13,96,420/- .

 

14.    Hence, as discussed above in above paras, we come to the conclusion that, the complainants are entitled to get the compensation of Rs.13,96,420/- from OP No.1 to 3 along with interest as they have not taken precautionary measures to safeguard the public interest.  Therefore, we come to the conclusion that, there is a deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1 to 3.  Accordingly, this Point No.1 is held as partly affirmative to the complainant.    

  15.     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 CP Act 1986 is hereby partly allowed.

It is ordered that the OP No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,96,420/-to the complainants along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of complaint till realization.

Out of which, the complainant No.1 is entitled for a sum of Rs.9,96,420/- 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.2,00,000/- each 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 OP No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant No.1. 

 

It is ordered that, the OP No.1 to 3 are hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of this order.

 (This order is made with the consent of Member after the correction of the draft on 10/01/2019 and it is pronounced in the open Court after our signatures)         

 

                                     

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

-:ANNEXURES:-

Witnesses examined on behalf of Complainant:

 

PW-1:  ComplainantNo.1 by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OPs:

 

DW-1: Sri.H. Tirupathi, AEE of OP No.1 by way of affidavit evidence.

 

Documents marked on behalf of Complainant:

01	Ex-A-1:-	FIR
02	Ex-A-2:-	Complaint by complainant No.1
03	Ex-A-3:-	Mahazar
04	Ex.A-4:	PM report
05	Ex.A-5:-	House list register
06	Ex.A-6:-	Inquest mahazar
07	Ex.A-7:-	Statement of Siddappa
08	Ex.A-8:-	Charge sheet
09	Ex.A-9:-	Legal Notice dated 01.09.2018
10	Ex.A-10:-	Reply to legal notice dated 21.09.2018

Documents marked on behalf of OPs:

01	Ex-B-1:-	Letter dated 28.03.2015
02	Ex-B-2:-	Letter dated 22.05.2015
03	Ex-B-3:-	Reply to legal notice dated 21.09.2018

 

 

MEMBER                                                   PRESIDENT

Rhr**