This complaint is coming on for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri K.Venu Gopal, Advocate for the complainants and Sri P.Venugopal Rao, Advocate for opposite parties and having stood over for consideration, the Forum made the following:-

O   R   D   E   R

 This is a complainant filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the relief to direct the O.Ps. to pay 5 lakhs towards compensation / damages with interest at 12% p.a., from the date of accident till the date of realization on the following averments.  The 1^st complainant is the widow, complainant 2 is the mother and complainants 3 and 4 are the children of the deceased Simhachalam.   On 21-9-2012 in the morning the deceased went to his fields to do agricultural work and as he did not return back in the evening his widow along with the brother of deceased went to the fields and found the dead body of the deceased lying on the ground.  Since the deceased came in contact with a live electrical wire which was cut and lying on the ground he sustained burn injuries and died.  The 1^st complainant gave a report to town police, Salur about the accident and the police registered the same as case in Crime No.137/2012 U/s 174 Cr.P.C. and sent the dead body to the Community Health Centre, Salur for Post Mortem Examination and after the autopsy was conducted the dead body was handed over to the complainants for cremation.  Due to dereliction of duties and deficiency of service on the part of men of O.Ps. a live electrical wire was cut and fallen on the ground and as the deceased came in contact with the said wire while going to his filed he sustained burn injuries and died.  As on the date of accident the deceased was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.200/- per day.  Due to his sudden demise the complainants being his heirs are deprived of his support.  Till date the O.Ps. did not pay any amount towards exgratia to the complainants.  The complainants got issued a notice calling upon the O.Ps. to pay damages but of no avail.  Hence the complaint.

The 3^rd O.P. filed counter and the same was adopted by O.Ps. 1 and 2 by filing memo.  The O.Ps. traversed the material allegations made in the complaint and have averred that the incident was occurred due to heavy gale and wind which was occurred in the previous day upon which the wire was cut and fallen on the ground and the deceased seems to have unnoticingly came in contact with the fallen wire and was electrocuted.  Since the accident is purely occurred due to natures mishap the O.Ps. have recommended for payment of exgratia to the legal heirs of the victims as per rules and on humanitarian grounds it is under process.   As there is no negligence and deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps. the petition merits no consideration.  The O.Ps. have disputed about the relationship in between the deceased and complainants and about the avocation and earnings of the deceased. It is averred that as there are no merits and bonafides in the complaint the same is liable to be dismissed.

The 1^st complainant and O.P.3 filed their respective evidence affidavits.   In support of complainants case they got marked Ex.A.1 to A.5.  Both parties filed their brief written arguments.

Now the point for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs prayed for.

As seen from the material placed on record and the contents of written arguments submitted on behalf of the complainants the deceased Simhachalam while going to his field came in contact with a live cut electrical wire and having sustained burn injuries died on the spot.   To prove the above said contention the complainants filed not only the evidence affidavit of 1^st complainant, but also got marked the copy of FIR, Post Mortem Report, Inquest Report, death certificate, legal heir certificate and house hold card as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6.  The contents of above said documents clearly reveals that the deceased died due to electrocution on 21-9-2012 and his relationship with the complainants is established. 

In the counter filed by the O.Ps. they did not deny the accident but have taken a plea that on the previous day of incident there was heavy gale and wind upon which the wire was cut and fallen on the ground and as the deceased unnoticingly came in contact with the fallen wire he got electrocuted. It is their further contention since the accident was occurred due to natures mishap they have recommended for payment of exgratia which is under process.  Though they have taken such a plea they did not adduce any cogent evidence to prove that there was heavy gale and wind on the previous day of incident and due to nature mishap the wire was cut and fallen on the ground.  Even if it is believed that due to heavy wind the live electrical wire was cut and fallen on the ground a duty was cast upon the men of O.Ps. to make a visit to the place of incident and to restore the cut wire so as to prevent damage to the men and cattle who would be generally moving in the fields.

If any live electrical wire is cut and falls on the ground for any reason whatsoever the supply of electric current would be disrupted.  Then it is an indication to the men of O.Ps. to immediately act upon and to restore the current.  If they fail to act upon forthwith it amounts to dereliction of duties.  When a live electrical wire is allowed to lay on the ground even for a little time it would cause damage to the men and cattle who unnoticingly comes in contact with such electrical wire.  Hence, a duty is caste upon the O.Ps. or their men to chalk-out measures to prevent such mishaps.

          In a decision in  AIR 1920  PC 181 QUEBEC RAILWAY, LIGHT HEAT AND POWER COMPANY LTD., Vs. VANDRY & OTHERS it is held:- “that the company supplying the electricity is liable for the damage without proof that they had been negligent.  Even the defence that the cables 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 the electricity are liable for the damage without proof that they have been negligent.  Coming to case on hand the O.Ps. have taken a plea that on account of violent wind and gale the electrical wire was cut and fallen and unnoticingly the deceased touched it.  Even if the said contention is believed to be true the O.Ps. cannot escape their liability. 

           In a decision reported 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.  Further observation is that so long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangers 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.

We submit that the principles enunciated in the above decisions is Mutatis Mutandis applicable to the facts of the present case.  Since the O.Ps. are undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risk exposure to human life are liable under Law of torts to compensate to the injury suffered by any other person irrespective of any other negligence or carelessness on the part of Managers of such undertakings.  Since the men of O.Ps. did not act promptly to prevent passage of electricity into the cut electrical wire and as they did not restore it to prevent damage to men and cattle and as the deceased unnoticingly came in contact with the live wire and sustained burn injuries and died, it amounts to the total dereliction of duties and deficiency in service on the part of men of the O.Ps.   Hence, the O.Ps. are liable to pay compensation to the complainants who are the heirs of the deceased.  

Now, the point for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled to get Rs. 5 lakhs towards damages and compensation from the O.Ps.   As per complainant the deceased was working as a labourer and was earning Rs.200/- per day.  Except the evidence affidavit of 1^st complainant no cogent evidence is forthcoming to believe the actual avocation and earnings of the deceased.  The deceased hails from ordinary village and he was an unskilled labourer.   Since the deceased was hale and healthy he must be doing some work to earn his bread.  In rural areas one is not expected to get work for all the days in a month.  Hence, we deem it fit to accept his annual income at Rs.30,000/-.   Out of the same a 1/3^rd which comes to Rs.10,000/- can straight away be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased.  The balance of Rs.20,000/- can be taken as annual loss of dependency.  As seen from Post Mortem Certificate and inquest report the deceased was aged about 38 years.   Hence the appropriate multiplier is fixed at 16.  When the above annual loss of dependency is multiplied by the appropriate multiplier 16 fixed supra, the compensation under the head loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,20,000/-.  The same is accordingly 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 1^st complainant for loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. In all, the complainants are entitled to get Rs.3,30,000/- towards compensation and damages.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part awarding a compensation of Rs.3,30,000/- (Rupees three lakhs thirty thousand only) to the complainants with interest at 7% p.a., simple from the date of complaint till the date of realization, recoverable by the complainants from O.Ps. Out of the said compensation the 1^st complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,50,000/- (One lakh fifty thousand only) and the complainant 2 is entitled to get Rs.80,000/- (Rupees eighty thousand only) and complainants 3 and 4 are each entitled to get Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand only). Out of the amount awarded to the 1^st complainant she is entitled to withdraw a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with accrued interest and the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) shall be deposited in her name in a Nationalised Bank for a period of 2 years.  The 2^nd complainant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to her with accrued interest.  The amounts awarded to complainants 3 and 4 shall be deposited in their names in a Nationalised Bank till they attain majority.  The quarterly interest accrued on their deposits shall be withdrawn by the 1^st complainant and she has to spend the same for their maintenance and education.  The O.Ps. are directed to comply this order within 2 months from this date. 

Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 7^h day of January, 2014.

Member                                                           President

CC. 88 of 2012

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

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

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For complainant:-

1.   Ex.A.1 FIR dt.22-9-2012

2.   Ex.A.2 Postmortem report dt. 22-9-2012

3.   Ex.A.3 Inquest Report dt.23-9-2012

4.   Ex.A.4 Death Certificate dt.6-10-2012

5.   Ex.A.5 Legal Heir Certificate dt.21-9-2012

6.   Ex.A.6 House hold card

7.   Ex.A.7 registered lawyer notice.

For O.P.:-

NIL

                                                                                                President.