BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM RAICHUR.
COMPLAINT NO. (DCFR) CC. 25/11.
THIS THE 31st DAY OF JANUARY 2012.
P R E S E N T
1. Sri. Pampapathi B.sc.B.Lib. LLB PRESIDENT.
2. Sri. Gururaj, B.com.LLB. (Spl) MEMBER.
3. Smt. Pratibha Rani Hiremath,M.A. (Sanskrit) MEMBER.
*****
COMPLAINANTS :- 1. Yellamma W/o. Late Kariyppa age: major, Occ:
House wife, R/o. Turvihal, Tq. Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur.
2. Sri. Kamanna S/o. Gangappa, aged about 50 years,
Occ: Nil, R/o. Turvihal, Tq. Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur.
3. Gangamma W/o. Kamanna, age; 45 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. Turvihal, Tq. Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur.
//VERSUS//
OPPOSITE PARTIES :- 1. The Section Officer, GESCOM, Turvihal, Tq. Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur.
2. The Assistant Executive Engineer (Ele) O&M Sub Division, GESCOM, Sindhanoor, Dist: Raichur.
3. The Secretary Gram Panchayat, Turvihal Tq. Sindhaoor, Dist: Raichur.
CLAIM :- For to direct compensation amount of Rs. Ten Lakhs
with interest and for to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- with cost along with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
Date of institution :- 05-04-11.
Notice served :- 15-04-11.
Date of disposal :- 31-01-12.
Complainant represented by Sri. T.M. Swamy, Advocate.
Opposite Nos-1 & 2 represented by Sri. B.P.H., Advocate.
Opposite No-3 represented by Sri. M. Nagaraj, Advocate.
This case coming for final disposal before us, the Forum on considering the entire material and evidence placed on record by the parties passed the following.
JUDGEMENT
By Sri. Pampapathi President:-
This is a complaint filed by complainant Nos. 1 to 3 against opposite Nos. 1 to 3 under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to award compensation amount of Rs. Ten Lakhs with interest and for to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- with cost along with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, complainant No-2 Kamanna is the father of deceased Kariyappa, complainant No-1 is the wife of deceased Kariyappa, and complainant No-3 Gangamma is the wife of third son of complainant No-2. Deceased Kariyapa is the second son of complainant no-2, he was aged about 22 years, doing Hamali work in Turvihal village. On 03-07-09 in Turvihal village in the evening hours, said Kariyappa was going towards godown of one Shankrappa to un-load fertilizer from the lorry at about 5:45 PM, the said lorry came on the main road, Kariyappa saw the electric wire lying on the main road, as such, he get down from the lorry and went to the spot and tried to remove the said electric wire. The said wire was live wire as such due to electrocution Kariyappa died on the spot. The wire was lying due to negligence of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 and also due to negligence of the Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Turvihal. Thereafter the police registered case under UDR No. 22/09 of Turvihal Police. Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 not acted properly and not paid any compensation amount to the family members of deceased Kariyappa. Hence this complaint is filed against all the opposites for the reliefs as noted in it.
3. Opposite Nos-1 & 2 GESCOM Officers appeared in this case through their Advocate, filed their written version by denying the entire case of complainant. Further, it is contended that, these complainants are not the consumers for to supply of electricity from opposite Nos. 1 & 2, they cannot file consumer complaint there was no negligence on its part and thereby, they prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
4. Opposite No-3 Secretary Gram Panchayat, Turvihal appeared in this case through his Advocate, filed his written version by denying the case of complainant and also the alleged deficiency in his service and thereby, he prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds.
5. In-view of the facts and circumstances stated above. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that:
1. Whether the complainant No-1 being the wife of late Kariyappa and complainant No-2 is the father of deceased Kariyappa and complainant No-3 is the daughter in law of complainant No-2 filed their complaint as a consumer with regard to incident dt. 03-07-09 at 5:45 PM in Turvihal village, in which Kariyappa died due to electrocution when he tried to remove the live wire lying on the main road in Turvihal village it was due to negligence of opposites and thereby opposites 1 to 3 found guilty under deficiency in their services.?
2. Whether complainants are entitled for the relief’s as prayed in their complaint.?
3. What order?
6. Our findings on the above points are as under:-
(1) In the affirmative
(2) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as noted in the final order.
(3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed
to pass the final order for the following :
REASONS
POINT NO.1 :-
6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, who is noted as PW-1, and affidavit-evidence of complainant No.2 Kamanna was filed, who is noted as PW-2. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-7 are marked. On the other hand, affidavit-evidence of officer of the opposite Nos. 1 & 2 was filed, who is noted as RW-1. No documents filed and marked on their behalf. Affidavit-evidence of opposite No-3 was filed, who is noted as RW-2 and no documents filed and marked.
7. On 06-01-2012 the learned advocate for complainant filed a memo by stating that, document Ex.P-1 be ignored and requested to consider Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-11 for the reasons stated in the memo.
8. At the time of arguments on the main case, the learned advocate for opposite Nos. 1 & 2 pointed out that, Ex.P-1 and other documents are not related to the alleged incident as stated by the complainant in this case. Hence, he requested us to dismiss this complaint on this ground only.
9. It appears us to that, the learned advocate for complainant filed documents Ex.P-1 & 2 which are pertaining to incident dt. 25-09-09 and its Crime No. is 34/09 of Sindhanur Rural PS. The said complaint was filed before this police by one Smt. Rajeshwari with regard to death of her husband due to electrocution in PWD Camp, Sindhanur. Ex.P-9 produced at later stage by the learned advocate for complainant is a complaint filed before Turvihal PS in respect of the present incident which was registered under Crime No. 22/09 of Turvihal PS. This fact is confirmed by copy of FIR and also PM Report of Kariyappa Ex.P-10.
10. In view of the circumstances, it appears to us that Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 might have filed by the learned advocate for complainant which belongs to other crime number due to oversight, as the incident in Cr.No. 34/09 of Sindhanoor Rural PS and Ex.P-9. The present incident in Cr.No. 22/09 of Turvihal PS are similar in nature, except it nothing knew is out coming in filing Ex.P-1 & 2 in this case. It is not a good ground to reject the complaint, as such we have not satisfied with the submissions made by the learned advocate for opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to reject this complaint. Hence we have ignored Ex.P-1 & 2 and we have considered Ex.P-9 the copy of the complaint in Cr.No. 22/09 of Turvihal PS and its FIR copy and PM Report of Kariyappa Ex.P-10 as all of them are relevant documents to this case
11. In view of the documents Ex.P-9 & Ex.P-10 along with affidavit-evidence of PW- 1 & 2, it is very much sufficient to say that, Kariyappa died due to electrocution on 03-07-09 at 5:45 PM in Turvihal village.
12. The next point for our consideration is whether the said incident took place due to negligence of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 or the negligence of opposite No-3 or by the negligence of deceased Kariyappa.
13. We have gone through the documents Ex.P-9 & Ex.P-10, affidavit-evidence of PW- 1 & 2, coupled with the affidavit-evidence of RW-1 & 2. It is a fact that, the electric live wire was lying on the main road from the cutting hedge from the pole. It is a fact that. Number of villagers were passing on the main road at that time, in the said circumstances, Kariyappa came near by the place of incident by seeing, the wire lying on the road, he went their and tried to remove it from his hands. Such act of the Hamali Kariyappa, cannot be attributed as he acted negligently. He being an illiterate man, tried to remove the wire without his knowledge that the said live wire was, hence it is a natural act of deceased. It is the duty of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to lend assurance of safety to all the villagers when the electric wire was passing in the village that too, wire passing from poles to pole. Here, we have not find such type of care and caution to lend assurance of safety to the villagers by opposite Nos. 1 & 2, it shown its negligence by allowing the live wire to remain on the main road. The explanation offered at the time of arguments cannot absolve the duty casts on the opposite Nos. 1 & 2. Hence, we feel that opposite Nos. 1 & 2 miserably failed to establish the fact that, they have taken care and caution of the safety of villagers in maintaining the wire in between pole to pole.
14. We have not noticed any deficiency in service on the part of opposite No.3
15. Another main contention that was contended before us by the leaned advocate for opposite Nos. 1 & 2 is that, these complainants are not the consumers, they cannot file consumer complaint as opposite Nos. 1 & 2 are not required to be done any kind of service either to decease Kariyappa or to present complainants, accordingly, he prayed for to dismiss this complaint.
16. In the backdrop of these submissions, we have gone through the definition of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. We have described the relationship of complainant Nos. 1 to 3 interalia with deceased Kariyappa and we have perused the documents Ex.P-3, 5, 6 & Ex.P-7 Khata Extract, and noticed the fact that, Kariyappa left behind these complainants.
Admittedly Kariyappa being permanent R/o. Turvihal village, these complainants are also residents of Turvihal village, they have paid taxes to the opposite No-3. In view of the fact, these three complainants are the consumers of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 and also deceased Kariyappa was also a consumer of opposite Nos. 1 & 2. We have not accepted the submissions made by the learned advocate for opposite Nos. 1 & 2 as they have not paid any charges towards supply of electricity to opposite Nos. 1 & 2 because the Gram Panchayat Turvihal, is paying consumption charges to street lights in Turvihal village. This cannot be denied by either opposite Nos. 1 & 2 or opposite No-3 Secretary Gram Panchayat, under these circumstances, these complainants are coming within the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(b) of C.P. Act.
17. The learned advocate for complainant relied on the following rulings:
1) C.G.M., P&O NPDCL & others V/s. Koppu Duddrajam & Anr.
IV (2008) CPJ 139 (NC)
2) MP Electricity Board V/s. Shailkumar & Ors
AIR 2002 SC 551.
3) IV (2008) CPJ 332 Parimal Devi & Other V/s. Dakshina Hariyana
Bijali Vitarana Nigama Ltd., & Anr.
Opposites not produced any authorities in support of their case. In AIR 2002 SC 51. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as “ the act of strangers is not available to electricity board in a case of electrocution in CGMP&O NPDCL’s case. The Hon’ble National Commissin held as the villagers are paying taxes to the village Panchayat and in turn panchayat pay power consumption charges to Electricity Company. Hence they are consumers.
18. Keeping in view of the principles of the rulings referred above, it is a fact that, these complainants are consumers, they can raise consumer disputes with regard to death of Kariyappa due to electrocution against opposite Nos. 1 & 2, as opposite Nos. 1 & 2 to shown their negligence in maintaining the live electric wire in the village from pole to pole which resulted in to death of Kariyappa. Hence opposite Nos. 1 & 2 cannot escape from its liability by showing its hand to villagers as there is no negligence on its part, accordingly, we answered Point NO-1 in affirmative.
19. As regard to quantum of compensation, which is required to be awarded to these complainants for death of Kariyappa in view of the negligence of opposite Nos. 1 & 2, we have relied on the following two authorities:
1) 2010 CTJ 626 (CP) (NCDRC) Smt. Mamta Ajamani & Other V/s. New Delhi Young Men’s Christian Association and Anr.
2) IV (2008) CTJ 332 Parimal Devi & Anr V/s. Dakshini Hariyana Bijali Vitarana Nigama Ltd., & Anr.
20. In the light of the principles laid down by their lordships of the National Commission, we have followed the said principles in this case to assess the quantum of compensation for the death of Kariyappa.
21. The complainants have contended in Para-3 of their complaint that, deceased Kariyappa was earning of Rs. 250 per day from Hamali work. PW-2 Kamanna, the father of deceased also stated the same fact, in his affidavit-evidence. However, there are no evidences in support of their claim that, deceased was getting Rs. 250/- per day from his Hamali work, as such, we have taken note of the labour work of Hamali in the village and took earning of Kariyappa per day Rs. 150/-. Hence, deceased Kariyappa might have earning Rs. 150/- per day from Hamali work, it will be Rs. 4500/- per month. In view of principles laid down by their lordships, we have applied multiplier method in assessing the compensation amount. In case of death 1/3 of Rs. 4500/- is deducted towards personal expenditure of Kariyappa then it works out to Rs. 4500-1500= 3000, which is earning of Kariyappa per month. The loss to the family members, due to death of Kariyappa per year will be Rs. 36,000/-. Deceased Kariyappa was aged about 22 years at the time of his death as noted in PM Report Ex.P-10. Hence, considering the age of complainant No-2 and the complainant No-1, we have come to conclusion, that proper multiplier applicable in this case would be 16 so 36000 x 16 = 5,76,000/- which is the amount entitled by these complainants towards future loss for the death of Kariyappa from opposite Nos. 1 & 2.
22. The complainants are also entitled to get an amount of Rs. 3,000/- towards deficiency in services of opposite No-2 and also they are entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,000/- towards cost of litigation. The complainants are entitled to get interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs. 5,81,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount.
This complaint against opposite No-3 is dismissed, accordingly we answered Point No-2.
POINT NO.3:-
23. In view of our findings on Point Nos-1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
The complaint filed by the complainant Nos. 1to 3 is partly allowed with cost against opposite Nos.1 & 2.
The complainants are entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 5,81,000/- from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally.
The complainants are also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on Rs. 5,81,000/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount.
The complaint of complainants 1 to 3 against opposite No-3 is dismissed.
Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 are hereby granted one month time from the date of this order to make the payment
Intimate the parties accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 31-01-12)
Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Sri. Gururaj Sri. Pampapathi,
Member. Member. President,
Dist.Forum-Raichur. Dist-Forum-Raichur Dist-Forum-Raichur.
