O R D E R
AS PER SRI T.SRIRAMA MURTHY,PRESIDENT
This Complaint is filed U/s-12 of C.P.Act seeking the relief to direct the OP’s to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest and costs towards compensation for the death of V.Malachi on the following averments:-
The 1st complaint is the wife and complainants 2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased V.Malachi. On 16.03.2014 at about 7.00PM the deceased went to the lands of Y.Sanjeeva Rao to do agricultural work and when he switched on the agricultural motor he sustained electrical shock and burn injuries as there was passage of high electricity from the pole to the panel board. The 1st complainant gave a report to police, Garividi who registered the same as case in Crime No.24/2014 and removed the dead body to Government Hospital, Chipurupalli for Autopsy. After conducting Post-Mortem examination the doctors handed over the dead body of the deceased to the complainants for cremation. As on the date of accident the complainant was aged about 40 years and was hale and healthy and was earning 200/- per day. The men of OP’s were in dereliction of their duties in maintaining the electrical lines and supply of electricity through the said lines in proper condition. As there is deficiency in service on the part of men of OP’s, the above said accident was occurred and as the petitioners are deprived of the support of deceased, they filed the complaint for the above said reliefs.
The OP’s 1 and 2 filed counter traversing the material allegations made in the complaint and have disputed the age, income and avocation of the deceased and his relationship with the complainants.
It is averred that the men of OP’s were not in dereliction of their duties and due to the negligent act of the deceased the above incident was occurred. It is averred that soon after accident the officer of the OP went to the scene and taken the photos and made necessary enquiry to know the cause for the accident and in the said enquiry the consumer Y.Sanjeeva Rao has stated that there was no fault on the part of men of OP’s and as the deceased was at fault the said incident took place. It is averred that Y.Sanjeeva Rao paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant towards compensation and the complainants have executed a document to that effect on 24.02.2014. It is averred that the original consumer and owner of the land are necessary parties and for not impleading them in the complaint the same is bad in law.
It is averred that there is no cause of action to the complainants for filing the complaint and as the same being divoid of merits is liable to be dismissed.
In support of the complainants case the evidence affidavit of PW-1 is filed and exhibits A1 to A7 are marked. In support of OP’s case they too filed affidavit evidence of RWS 1 and 2 and got marked exhibits B1 and B2.
Perused the material placed on record and heard the counsel for respective parties.
Now the point for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
Basing on the evidence available on record the learned advocate for complainant has contended that the men of OP’s were in dereliction of their duties as they have not checked the electrical wires to prevent passage of heavy electricity to the said lines and as the deceased while operating the switch of the motor he sustained electric shock and burn injuries and as the complainants are deprived of the support of the deceased, they are entitled to get compensation as prayed for.
As against the above said contention the learned advocate for OP’s has contended that there was no heavy flow of current through the electrical wires and as the deceased negligently operated the switch he sustained electrical shock and as the men of OP’s were not the cause for the accident the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
To support the complainants case the evidence affidavit of 1st complainant is filed which is in the same lines as that of the complaint. Besides the oral testimony of PW-1 the complainants have filed a copy of FIR, Post-Mortem Certificate, Inquest report, death certificate, Household card of the deceased Lawyer’s notice, Photographs and got the same marked as exhibits A1 to A7. The OP’s have also filed photographs and got the same marked as Exhibit B2.
As seen from the above said documents it is manifest that the deceased died due to electrical shock and burn injuries in the land of Y.Sanjeeva Rao on 16.03.2014. The OP’s have taken a plea that as the deceased was negligent in operating the starter and the switch board he sustained electrical shock and burn injuries. They have not placed any cogent evidence to prove the said fact. Even if it is believed that the deceased did not operate the switch board properly it cannot be said that the men of OP’s were not negligent or dereliction in their duties in maintaining the electrical lines and switch board in the premises of the consumer.
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.
As seen from the above said rules the men of OP’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 OP’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 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 11th 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.
Coming to case on hand no cogent evidence is adduced on behalf of OP’s to prove that the deceased was negligent in operating the motor. On the other hand the OP’s are negligent as they did not make periodical inspection to see that the electric supply lines and wires fitted to the motor are in proper condition in all respects for supplying energy without damages to the human beings, animals and property. Hence in the above said facts and circumstances we are of the considered opinion that the men of OP’s were in dereliction of their duties and as there is deficiency in service on their part, the above said accident took place which resulted in the death of the deceased Malachi.
In view of the principles laid down in the decisions cited supra even though the electrical wires were disrupted on account of violent wind and gale the OP’s cannot escape their liability to pay compensation to the complainants.
As seen from exhibit-B1 it is clear that though the owner of the land and motor has paid Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Rupees only) to the complainants towards damages, the OP’s cannot escape their liability as they are not parties to the Exhibit B1 document. Since the complainants have received Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) from the owner of the land under whom the deceased was engaged to work on the fateful day of accident, the above said sum can be adjusted in the amount of compensation payable by the OP’s.
Now the point for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled to get Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) towards compensation. As per complainants the deceased was aged about 40 years and was earning Rs.200/- (Rupees Two Hundred Only) per day. Though such a plea is taken the complainants did not adduce any cogent evidence to prove the actual avocation and income of the deceased. As seen from Inquest and Post Mortem reports the deceased was aged about 40 years at the time of accident. Since he was hale and healthy he must be doing some work to earn his bread. Hence we deem it fit to accept his annual income at Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only). Out of the same one third which comes to Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) can be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased. The balance of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) can be taken as annual loss of dependency. Since the deceased was aged about 40 years, the appropriate multiplier is fixed at 15. The above annual loss of dependency if multiplied by the appropriate multiplier 15 fixed supra the compensation under the head loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) Out of the said sum, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh Rupees only) which was already paid to the complainants under exhibit-B1 is deducted and the balance amount comes to Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Only) which can be awarded as compensation to the petitioners under the head loss of dependency. In addition to that a sum of Rs.5,000/- is awarded to the 1st complainant for loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) is awarded towards funeral expenses. In all the complainants are entitled to get Rs.2,10,000/- from the OP’s.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the OP’s to pay Rs.2,10,000/-(Rupees Two Lakhs Ten Thousand Only) to the complainants towards compensation and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards costs which includes the advocate fee of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only). The OP’s are further directed to comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of the order.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 19th day of February, 2015.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
C.C.No.36 / 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 Garividi PS in Cr.No.24/2014, Dt.17.03.2014.
Ex.A-2 Postmortem report of the diseased Vempadapu Malachi,Dt.17.03.2014.
Ex.A-3 Inquest Report of the diseased Vempadapu Malachi,Dt.17.03.2014.
Ex.A-4 Death Certificate of the Vempadapu Malachi, Dt.24.03.2014.
Ex.A-5 Xerox copy of the House hold card of the diseased,Dt.16.05.2006.
Ex.A-6 registered Lawyer Notice to the opposite parties,Dt.10.05.2014.
Ex.A-7 Photographs of the diseased Vempadapu Malachi.
For OP’s:-
Ex.B-1 Agreement.
Ex.B-2 Photos.
