The Section Officer, GESCOM The Executive Engineer, GESCOM The Managing Director, GESCOM
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
COMMON JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- Complainants 1 to 7 in C.C. No. 70/09 filed this complaint against opposites 1 to 3 officers GESCOM, Manvi, Raichur & Gulbarga U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to award a compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. since 11-06-09 till realization of the full amount and to award cost of Rs. 5,000/- with other reliefs due to death of one Basamma W/o. Lingappa by electrocution. 2. C.C.No. 71/09 is filed by one Channamma, minor under the guardianship of one Lingappa S/o. Hanumantha, R/o. Haravi against opposites 1 to 3 who are the same opposites in C.C.No. 70/09 for to award an compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with 18% p.a. from 11-06-09 towards cost with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 3. These two complaints arise out of single incident dt. 11-06-09 in one place opposites 1 to 3 in both the cases are one and the same who are the officers of GESCOM, Manvi, Raichur and Gulbarga. The complainants have relied on the affidavit-evidences of PWs- 1 to 3 and documents are similar to the documents relied by the complainant in C.C.No. 71/09, opposites have also relied on similar affidavit-evidences and documents in both the cases, as such these two cases heard together and disposed of by them this common judgment. 4. The brief facts of the complainants case in 70/09 are that, one Basamma who is the wife of complainant No-1 died due to electrocution in her tin-shed house, while she was hanging washed cloths on the wire fixed in her house, at that time due to negligence of the opposites officers the live wire from the pole touched to tin-shed as it was not dragged at safer distance. Smt. Basamma died electrucution. The complainants 2 to 7 are the sons and daughters of complainant No-1 and deceased Basamma are the consumers under the RR.No. HKG 99 which stands in the name of Amaramma W/o. Nagaraj who is the wife of complainant No-3 in this case. All of them have requested opposites to grant compensation amount due to death of Basamma for their negligence, they shown their negligence in awarding compensation amount, hence this complaint was filed by all of them for the reliefs as prayed in their complaint. 5. The brief facts of the complainants case in 71/09 is that, one Basamma W/o. Hanumantha who is the mother of minor complainant Channamma also died in the same incident. This complaint was filed by her through her natural guardian who is complainant No-1 in C.C.No. 70/09 opposites shown their negligence in awarding compensation for the death of Basamma W/o. Hanumantha due to their negligence and thereby she filed this complaint through her natural guardian Lingappa who is the complainant No-1 for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint. 6. Opposite No-1 in both the cases are placed Ex-parte. However written version filed in the name of opposite No-1, and adopted the same written version by opposites No- 2 & 3 in both the cases with similar defence. 7. According to opposites, complainant in C.C. No. 70/09 and complainant in C.C. No. 71/09 are not the consumers of opposites 1 to 3. RR.No. HKG 99 stands in the name of Smt. Amaramma W/o Nagaraj, R/o. Basavanna Camp, Tq. Manvi, but not at Harvi village as claimed by complainant. These complainants have illegally drawn electricity connection by connecting hook to the main pole without the knowledge of opposites. In UDR case, complainant No-2 i.e, C.C. No. 70/09 himself lodged complaint before the police by admitting the fact that, they have drawn wire by hooking to the main pole by illegal means, relationship of the parties, there is no relationship of consumer and service provider in between the complainants in both the cases with opposites. Hence it was prayed by them in both the cases to the complainants among other grounds. 8. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant Nos. 1 to 7 in C.C. No. 70/09 prove that, they are the consumers of electricity vide RR No. HKG 99 of Smt. Amaramma and on 11-06-09 one Basamma W/o. Lingappa died due electrocution while she was hanging washed cloths on the wire in her tin-shed due to coming into contact of live wire from the pole to the tins of the roof as it was not in safe distance from the tins, due to negligence of opposites and thereafter all the complainants have requested the opposites to grant compensation for the death of Basamma but they shown their negligence and thereby all the opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services ? 2. Whether the complainant in CC No. 71/09 proves that, herself and her deceased mother were the consumers of RR No. HKG 99 on 11-06-09 one Basamma W/o. Hanumantha died due electrocution while she was hanging washed cloths on the wire in her tin-shed due to coming into contact of main live wire from the pole to the tins of the roof as it was not in safe distance due to it Basamma W/o. Hanumantha died due to negligence of opposites and thereafter the complainant has requested the opposites to grant compensation for her death, they shown their negligence and thereby all the opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services ? 3. Whether the complainants in C.C.No. 70/09 & 71/09 are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in their respective complaints. 4. What order? 9. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) In the affirmative. (3) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as stated in the final order. (4) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 to 3, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1. In C.C. No. 70/09 & in C.C. No. 71/09:- 10. To prove the case of complainants in C.C. No. 70/09, affidavit-evidence of the complainant No-1 was filed, he was noted as PW-1, affidavit-evidence of one Mareppa who is the son of complainant No-1 and complainant in UDR No. 17/09 was filed he was noted as PW-2. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of J.E. of opposites was filed, he was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked, interrogatories filed by the opposites to PW-1 who answered to those interrogatories and thereafter opposites filed objections to his answers. 11. In C.C.No. 71/09, affidavit-evidence of natural guardian of minor complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1, affidavit-evidences of PW-2 & 3 are filed, documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 are marked. On the other hand affidavit- evidence of J.E. of opposite was filed who is noted as RW-1, he is none else then the RW-1. In C.C. No. 70/09, documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked, opposites filed interrogatories to complainant who answered to those interrogatories, thereafter opposites filed their objections. 12. In the light of the pleadings of the parties in both the cases their respective affidavit-evidences and documents, some of the following material points required to be appreciated in these two cases:- (1) Whether the Basamma W/o. Lingappa and complainant Nos- 1 to 7 in CC.No. 70/09 were the consumers and opposites GESCOM is service provider of electricity to them vide RR.No. KKG 99 of Harvi village, in the similar way in C.C. No. 71/09 whether deceased Basamma W/o. Hanumantha and complainant are the consumers of opposite GESCOM vide RR.No. HKG 99 of Harvi, village. 2) Whether there was any negligence on the part of opposite GESCOM and due to the said negligence Basamma W/o. Lingappa and Basamma W/o. Hanumantha died on the spot. 13. The main dispute in between the parties with regard to Point No-1, the learned advocate for opposites in both the cases seriously argued that, the complainant in C.C. No. 70/09 and complainant in C.C. No. 71/09 are not at all consumers, according to his submissions, the installation bearing RR.No. HKG 99 is in the name of Smt. Amaramma W/o. Nagaraj R/o. Basavanna Camp, connection provided under Bhagyajyothi Scheme of Karnataka Government neither these complainants nor Smt. Amaramma is not at all paying bills for consumption of electricity, as such they are not the consumers as defined under the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. 14. On the other hand, the learned advocate for complainant submitted before us that, no doubt the installation was under Bhagyajyothi Scheme of the Government, concerned Panchayat is paying bills to opposites on behalf of Amaramma and these complainants are residing jointly with Amaramma and they are the beneficiaries under the scheme and thereby they are also consumers within the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. He relied on the ruling reported in IV 2008 CPJ 139 (NC) CGM Pando NPDCL & Others V/s. Koppu Duddaramjam and Another. 15. In the light of the submissions made on both sides on this point, we have gone through the definition of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act and also the principles held by their lordships of the Honble National Commission in the said ruling. It is a fact that, the scheme provided was under Bhagyajyothi Scheme of Karnataka Government, concerned Panchayat is paying bills monthly to opposites for consumption of electricity by the beneficiaries under the scheme. In the light of the circumstances and in the light of the principles of the ruling referred above, we declined to accept the contention of opposites that, deceased Basamma W/o. Lingappa and complainants Nos. 1 to 7 in C.C.No. 70/09 and deceased Basamma W/o. Hanumantha and complainant in C.C. No. 71/09 are not the consumers of opposites. 16. Another contention that was raised before us by the learned advocate for opposites is as, these complainants have committed theft of electricity of illegal hooking from the main pole and thereby the incident took place for which opposite is not liable to pay any kind of damages to the complainant. 17. In support of this submissions, he relied on the ruling of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 2002 ACJ 337 West Bengal State Electricity Board and Others V/s. Sachin Banerjee and Others. In the said case their lordships held as two persons were electrocuted be cause of illegal hooking__ electricity Board is negligent and liable for damages__ held__No. 18. On the other hand, the learned advocate for complainant submitted before us that, the complainants are not committed theft of electricity as contended by opposites, they have not illegally hooked from the main pole for the purpose of committing theft of electricity, the main live wire touched to the tin-shed of the complainants and thereby the entire house of complainant under electrical circuit and thereby it leads to death of two persons, which shows negligent act of opposites. 19. He relied on the ruling reported in IV 2008 CPJ 139 (NC) and ruling of Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 (NOC) Chattisgarh Electricity Board V/s. Smt. Theresa. 20. Now, we have to appreciate the oral and documentary evidences of the parties to decide as to whether is there any negligence on the part of the opposites in the said incident. To substantiate the contention of opposites they have relied on the documents Ex.P-1 and contended that, the complainant Mareppa in UDR No. 17/09 himself admitted that, they dragged through wire by connecting to the pole to the tin-shed and thereby the incident took place in the tin-shed. 21. In pursuance of the submissions made by learned advocate for opposites in reference to document Ex.P-1, we are of the view that, the complainant Mareppa in UDR No. 17/09 who is the complainant No-2 in CC.No. 70/09 not at all stated that, they have illegally drawn the electricity by hooking to the live wire in the pole, after all the said Mareppa is a villager, rustic and he might have education of putting his signature, which is very clear from Ex.P-1. Under the said circumstances, we cannot twist the meaning of sentence stated by him in Ex.P-1 as they took current from the pole by wire to the convenient of oposites. The other facts of his complaint Ex.P-1 not discloses the fact that, they have illegally hooked to the live wire to commit the theft of electricity as submitted before us by the learned advocate for opposites, as such we are of the view that, Ex.P-1 is itself not sufficient for us to say that, these complainants have dragged the electricity from the pole by illegal hooking. 22. Apart from the above said facts, even for the sake of arguments if it was an illegal connection, then it was the duty of the opposites to take care to avoid such kind of illegal abstraction of electricity. No such evidences in that regard as such we are not in a position to accept these contentions of learned advocate for opposites. 23. Another contention that was taken by the learned advocate for opposite before us is that, RR.No. HKG 99 was installed in the name of Amaramma W/o. Nagaraj R/o. Basavanna Camp, these complainants are resident of Harvi village, Basavanna Camp is 2 to 3 Kilo meter away from the Harvi village said Amaramma not filed any affidavit evidence in this regard and it is his submissions that, complainant are not at all related to one Amaramma W/o. Nagaraj R/o. Basavanna Camp. 24. In support of these submissions, he relied on Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4, no doubt in document Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 the said Amaramma W/o. Nagaraj is shown as resident of Basavanna Camp on whose name RR.No. HKG 99 installed. 25. The learned advocate for complainant seriously dispute these documents on so many grounds and he relied on document Ex.P-2 which is the certificate issued by the Secretary Gram Panchayat, Harvi. 26. The contentions of opposites and their documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 cannot be accepted to hold that, Amaramma W/o. Nagaraj is the consumer of RR.No. HKG 99 of Basavanna Camp in the light of Ex.P-2 which is the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat Harvi village on 01-07-09, we cannot find any defects in issuing certificate by said secretary who is an independent officer of Gram Panchayat. It is recent document rather than Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4, opposites not shown before us as to how this secretary is interested towards complainant for creating such official certificate Ex.P-2, under the said circumstances we are of the view that, Ex.P-2 is an acceptable document and there on we hold that, these complainants are resident of Harvi village wherein RR.No. HKG 99 is installed. 27. Another contention that was taken by the learned advocate for opposites in this case is that, complainants 1 to 7 in C.C.No. 70/09 & complainant in C.C. No. 71/09 and deceased Basamma W/o. Lingappa & Basamma W/o. Hanumantha are not at all residing in one house and they cannot be called as a joint family members and they are not residing along with Amaramma W/o. Nagaraj who is a consumer under RR.No. HKG 99, there are no specific pleadings to that effect, as such he requested us not to consider as all of them are residing in one house under RR. HKG 99. In support of this submission he relied on the ruling reported in 2004 (1) KCCR 662 K. Gopalreddy (deceased by Lrs) V/s. Suryanarayana and Others. 28. In the said case, their lordships of the Honble High Court of Karnataka observed as when party approach the court with pleadings and issues, he shall prove his case and suit has to be decided on the merits and demerits of the case, weakness of the defendant cannot be considered. 29. The main contention of the learned advocate for opposite is that, parties have not pleaded their jointness and residing in one house jointly and thereby they cannot be allowed to prove new facts which are not pleaded and they cannot take advantage of the weakness of the opposites. 30. The learned advocate for complainant in both the cases denied such contention. In the light of the submissions made on both sides on this point, we have referred the facts pleaded in the complaint in CC No. 70/09 & 71/09. In 70/09 they are specifically pleaded that, the complainants are leaving jointly in a house just in front of the electricity pole in the similar way complainant in 71/09 pleaded same facts. 31. The deceased Basamma W/o. Lingappa is none else then the wife of complainant No-1, complainant No- 2 to 7 are the sons and daughters Lingappa and deceased Basamma in C.C. No. 70/09. 32. Amaramma W/o. Nagaraj on whose name RR.No. HKG 99 is standing is none else then the wife of complainant No-3 Nagaraj. 33. The deceased Basamma W/o. Hanumantha in C.C. No. 71/09 is none else then the natural mother of minor complainant PW-1 in 71/09 who is the mother of deceased Basamma W/o. Hanumantha as pleaded by the complainant in Para- 3 of her complaint in C.C. No. 71/09, the complainant No-1 Lingappa in C.C. No. 70/09 is an uncle of deceased Basamma W/o. Hanumantha. 34. In view of the close relationship of complainant Nos. 1 to 7 in C.C. No. 70/09 and complainant No. 71/09, the presumption is that, all of them are joint family members, affidavit-evidence of PW- 1 & 2 in C.C. No. 70/09 and affidavit-evidences of PWs-1 to 3 in C.C. No. 71/09 are sufficient to hold that, all of them are residing together in house wherein RR. No. HKG 99 installed at Harvi village, there are no evidences from the opposite to destroy such presumption as is available under Hindu Law, hence we have not find any variance in between the pleadings and proofs by the complainants in both the cases. Hence we rejected this contention of the opposites. 35. As regard to negligence is concerned, we have appreciated the evidences of PW- 1 & 2 who are the husband and sons of deceased Basamma in C.C. No. 70/09, in the similar way we have appreciated the evidences of PWs- 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 71/09 with regard to the death of Basamma W/o. Hanumantha. In addition to those affidavit-evidences we have referred FIR copy of the complaint at Ex.P-1, Ex.P-6 Police Report, Ex.P-9 P.M. Report, Ex.P-10 Inquest Report and Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 Police Case Diary clearly reveals the fact that, the live main service wire hanging on the roof of tin-shed came in contact with the tins placed on the roof and thereby current passed to the tins and passed to the J-wire which was using for to place wet cloths for to dry up the cloths which shows negligence of these opposites in non-maintaining safe distance of the live wire from the tin roof. In view of such negligence of opposites this unfortunate incident took place in which two ladies died on the spot due to electrocution, as such the affidavit-evidences and documentary evidences placed before us by the complainant in both the cases are accepted to hold the negligence of the opposites by rejecting all the contentions of the opposites in both the cases and thereby we answered Point No-1 in C.C. No. 70/09 and Point No-1 in 71/09 as in affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 36. Admittedly deceased Basamma W/o. Lingappa was aged about (50) years as per PM Report at Ex.P-9, she died leaving behind complainant No-1 as her wife and complainant Nos-2 to 7 as her sons and daughters. 37. Deceased Basamma W/o Hanumantha in C.C. No. 71/09 was aged about (26) years at the time of her death as per P.M. Report at Ex.P-10 she died leaving behind her minor daughter complainant. 38. The learned advocate for complainant submitted following rulings to follow the principles of the said rulings in deciding the quantum of compensation in both the cases:- 1. 2004 ACJ 972 Bihar State Electricity Board V/s. Lacto Shah and Others. 2. 2001 (VIII) SC 197 Latwadia & Others V/s. State of Bihar & Others. 3. 2009 (3) Civil Law Journal 482 SC Smt. Sarla Verma & Others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation & Others. 39. Further he requested us to follow multiplier method in assessing quantum of compensation amount as observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court. 40. The learned advocate for opposites submitted that, the facts of the rulings referred above are not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand and thereby requested us not to take note of the above said rulings. 41. We have gone through the principles of the said rulings and also we have gone through the observations of the Supreme Court in G.M. Kerala SRTC V/s. Susma Thomas reported in 1994 (2) SCC 176, we have also considered the affidavit-evidences of PWs 1 to 3 in both the cases and of the opinion that, there are no evidences to assess the loss of future income, status of the family and other related factors before us, under such circumstances, we have taken note of the entire case of the complainants in C.C. No. 70/09 and came to a conclusion that all these complainants are entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as a compensation amount due to negligence of these opposites. 42. As regards to the deficiency in service is concerned, in C.C. No. 70/09, complainants are entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the opposites 1 to 3 jointly and severally. In the similar way all of them are entitled to get an amount of Rs. 2,500/- towards cost of litigation, as such all the complainants in C.C. No. 70/09 are entitled to get total amount of Rs. 1,57,500/-. The complainants are also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. 43. As we have already taken note of the aged of the deceased Basamma W/o. Hanumantha her family status and other related materials and we came to a conclusion that awarding lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as a compensation to the complainant is proper and just, accordingly the complainant in C.C. No. 71/09 is entitled to recover a lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the opposites 1 to 3 jointly and severally. 44. As regards to the deficiency in service is concerned, in C.C. No. 71/09 complainant is entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the opposites 1 to 3 jointly and severally. In the similar way she is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 2,500/- towards cost of litigation, as such the complainant in C.C. No. 71/09 is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 2,07,500/-. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount, accordingly we answered Point No-3. POINT NO.3:- 45. In C.C. No. 70/09 & 71/09 in view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 to 3 in the said cases, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER The complaint filed by the complainants 1 to 7 in C.C. 70/09 is partly allowed with cost. The complainants 1 to 7 are entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 1,57,500/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The complainants are also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 1,57,500/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. 71/09 is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 2,07,500/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 2,07,500/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Opposites 1 to 3 are hereby granted one month time to make the above payment separately to complainant in both the cases from the date of this judgment. Keep the copy of this judgment in C.C. No. 71/09. Intimate the parties accordingly. Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 25-03-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. COMMON JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- Complainants 1 to 7 in C.C. No. 70/09 filed this complaint against opposites 1 to 3 officers GESCOM, Manvi, Raichur & Gulbarga U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to award a compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. since 11-06-09 till realization of the full amount and to award cost of Rs. 5,000/- with other reliefs due to death of one Basamma W/o. Lingappa by electrocution. 2. C.C.No. 71/09 is filed by one Channamma, minor under the guardianship of one Lingappa S/o. Hanumantha, R/o. Haravi against opposites 1 to 3 who are the same opposites in C.C.No. 70/09 for to award an compensation amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- with 18% p.a. from 11-06-09 towards cost with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 3. These two complaints arise out of single incident dt. 11-06-09 in one place opposites 1 to 3 in both the cases are one and the same who are the officers of GESCOM, Manvi, Raichur and Gulbarga. The complainants have relied on the affidavit-evidences of PWs- 1 to 3 and documents are similar to the documents relied by the complainant in C.C.No. 71/09, opposites have also relied on similar affidavit-evidences and documents in both the cases, as such these two cases heard together and disposed of by them this common judgment. 4. The brief facts of the complainants case in 70/09 are that, one Basamma who is the wife of complainant No-1 died due to electrocution in her tin-shed house, while she was hanging washed cloths on the wire fixed in her house, at that time due to negligence of the opposites officers the live wire from the pole touched to tin-shed as it was not dragged at safer distance. Smt. Basamma died electrucution. The complainants 2 to 7 are the sons and daughters of complainant No-1 and deceased Basamma are the consumers under the RR.No. HKG 99 which stands in the name of Amaramma W/o. Nagaraj who is the wife of complainant No-3 in this case. All of them have requested opposites to grant compensation amount due to death of Basamma for their negligence, they shown their negligence in awarding compensation amount, hence this complaint was filed by all of them for the reliefs as prayed in their complaint. 5. The brief facts of the complainants case in 71/09 is that, one Basamma W/o. Hanumantha who is the mother of minor complainant Channamma also died in the same incident. This complaint was filed by her through her natural guardian who is complainant No-1 in C.C.No. 70/09 opposites shown their negligence in awarding compensation for the death of Basamma W/o. Hanumantha due to their negligence and thereby she filed this complaint through her natural guardian Lingappa who is the complainant No-1 for the reliefs as prayed in this complaint. 6. Opposite No-1 in both the cases are placed Ex-parte. However written version filed in the name of opposite No-1, and adopted the same written version by opposites No- 2 & 3 in both the cases with similar defence. 7. According to opposites, complainant in C.C. No. 70/09 and complainant in C.C. No. 71/09 are not the consumers of opposites 1 to 3. RR.No. HKG 99 stands in the name of Smt. Amaramma W/o Nagaraj, R/o. Basavanna Camp, Tq. Manvi, but not at Harvi village as claimed by complainant. These complainants have illegally drawn electricity connection by connecting hook to the main pole without the knowledge of opposites. In UDR case, complainant No-2 i.e, C.C. No. 70/09 himself lodged complaint before the police by admitting the fact that, they have drawn wire by hooking to the main pole by illegal means, relationship of the parties, there is no relationship of consumer and service provider in between the complainants in both the cases with opposites. Hence it was prayed by them in both the cases to the complainants among other grounds. 8. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant Nos. 1 to 7 in C.C. No. 70/09 prove that, they are the consumers of electricity vide RR No. HKG 99 of Smt. Amaramma and on 11-06-09 one Basamma W/o. Lingappa died due electrocution while she was hanging washed cloths on the wire in her tin-shed due to coming into contact of live wire from the pole to the tins of the roof as it was not in safe distance from the tins, due to negligence of opposites and thereafter all the complainants have requested the opposites to grant compensation for the death of Basamma but they shown their negligence and thereby all the opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services ? 2. Whether the complainant in CC No. 71/09 proves that, herself and her deceased mother were the consumers of RR No. HKG 99 on 11-06-09 one Basamma W/o. Hanumantha died due electrocution while she was hanging washed cloths on the wire in her tin-shed due to coming into contact of main live wire from the pole to the tins of the roof as it was not in safe distance due to it Basamma W/o. Hanumantha died due to negligence of opposites and thereafter the complainant has requested the opposites to grant compensation for her death, they shown their negligence and thereby all the opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services ? 3. Whether the complainants in C.C.No. 70/09 & 71/09 are entitled for the reliefs as prayed in their respective complaints. 4. What order? 9. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) In the affirmative. (3) As discussed in the body of this judgement and as stated in the final order. (4) In-view of the findings on Point Nos- 1 to 3, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1. In C.C. No. 70/09 & in C.C. No. 71/09:- 10. To prove the case of complainants in C.C. No. 70/09, affidavit-evidence of the complainant No-1 was filed, he was noted as PW-1, affidavit-evidence of one Mareppa who is the son of complainant No-1 and complainant in UDR No. 17/09 was filed he was noted as PW-2. The documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of J.E. of opposites was filed, he was noted as RW-1. The documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked, interrogatories filed by the opposites to PW-1 who answered to those interrogatories and thereafter opposites filed objections to his answers. 11. In C.C.No. 71/09, affidavit-evidence of natural guardian of minor complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1, affidavit-evidences of PW-2 & 3 are filed, documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 are marked. On the other hand affidavit- evidence of J.E. of opposite was filed who is noted as RW-1, he is none else then the RW-1. In C.C. No. 70/09, documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 are marked, opposites filed interrogatories to complainant who answered to those interrogatories, thereafter opposites filed their objections. 12. In the light of the pleadings of the parties in both the cases their respective affidavit-evidences and documents, some of the following material points required to be appreciated in these two cases:- (1) Whether the Basamma W/o. Lingappa and complainant Nos- 1 to 7 in CC.No. 70/09 were the consumers and opposites GESCOM is service provider of electricity to them vide RR.No. KKG 99 of Harvi village, in the similar way in C.C. No. 71/09 whether deceased Basamma W/o. Hanumantha and complainant are the consumers of opposite GESCOM vide RR.No. HKG 99 of Harvi, village. 2) Whether there was any negligence on the part of opposite GESCOM and due to the said negligence Basamma W/o. Lingappa and Basamma W/o. Hanumantha died on the spot. 13. The main dispute in between the parties with regard to Point No-1, the learned advocate for opposites in both the cases seriously argued that, the complainant in C.C. No. 70/09 and complainant in C.C. No. 71/09 are not at all consumers, according to his submissions, the installation bearing RR.No. HKG 99 is in the name of Smt. Amaramma W/o. Nagaraj R/o. Basavanna Camp, connection provided under Bhagyajyothi Scheme of Karnataka Government neither these complainants nor Smt. Amaramma is not at all paying bills for consumption of electricity, as such they are not the consumers as defined under the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. 14. On the other hand, the learned advocate for complainant submitted before us that, no doubt the installation was under Bhagyajyothi Scheme of the Government, concerned Panchayat is paying bills to opposites on behalf of Amaramma and these complainants are residing jointly with Amaramma and they are the beneficiaries under the scheme and thereby they are also consumers within the meaning and definition of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act. He relied on the ruling reported in IV 2008 CPJ 139 (NC) CGM Pando NPDCL & Others V/s. Koppu Duddaramjam and Another. 15. In the light of the submissions made on both sides on this point, we have gone through the definition of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act and also the principles held by their lordships of the Honble National Commission in the said ruling. It is a fact that, the scheme provided was under Bhagyajyothi Scheme of Karnataka Government, concerned Panchayat is paying bills monthly to opposites for consumption of electricity by the beneficiaries under the scheme. In the light of the circumstances and in the light of the principles of the ruling referred above, we declined to accept the contention of opposites that, deceased Basamma W/o. Lingappa and complainants Nos. 1 to 7 in C.C.No. 70/09 and deceased Basamma W/o. Hanumantha and complainant in C.C. No. 71/09 are not the consumers of opposites. 16. Another contention that was raised before us by the learned advocate for opposites is as, these complainants have committed theft of electricity of illegal hooking from the main pole and thereby the incident took place for which opposite is not liable to pay any kind of damages to the complainant. 17. In support of this submissions, he relied on the ruling of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 2002 ACJ 337 West Bengal State Electricity Board and Others V/s. Sachin Banerjee and Others. In the said case their lordships held as two persons were electrocuted be cause of illegal hooking__ electricity Board is negligent and liable for damages__ held__No. 18. On the other hand, the learned advocate for complainant submitted before us that, the complainants are not committed theft of electricity as contended by opposites, they have not illegally hooked from the main pole for the purpose of committing theft of electricity, the main live wire touched to the tin-shed of the complainants and thereby the entire house of complainant under electrical circuit and thereby it leads to death of two persons, which shows negligent act of opposites. 19. He relied on the ruling reported in IV 2008 CPJ 139 (NC) and ruling of Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 (NOC) Chattisgarh Electricity Board V/s. Smt. Theresa. 20. Now, we have to appreciate the oral and documentary evidences of the parties to decide as to whether is there any negligence on the part of the opposites in the said incident. To substantiate the contention of opposites they have relied on the documents Ex.P-1 and contended that, the complainant Mareppa in UDR No. 17/09 himself admitted that, they dragged through wire by connecting to the pole to the tin-shed and thereby the incident took place in the tin-shed. 21. In pursuance of the submissions made by learned advocate for opposites in reference to document Ex.P-1, we are of the view that, the complainant Mareppa in UDR No. 17/09 who is the complainant No-2 in CC.No. 70/09 not at all stated that, they have illegally drawn the electricity by hooking to the live wire in the pole, after all the said Mareppa is a villager, rustic and he might have education of putting his signature, which is very clear from Ex.P-1. Under the said circumstances, we cannot twist the meaning of sentence stated by him in Ex.P-1 as they took current from the pole by wire to the convenient of oposites. The other facts of his complaint Ex.P-1 not discloses the fact that, they have illegally hooked to the live wire to commit the theft of electricity as submitted before us by the learned advocate for opposites, as such we are of the view that, Ex.P-1 is itself not sufficient for us to say that, these complainants have dragged the electricity from the pole by illegal hooking. 22. Apart from the above said facts, even for the sake of arguments if it was an illegal connection, then it was the duty of the opposites to take care to avoid such kind of illegal abstraction of electricity. No such evidences in that regard as such we are not in a position to accept these contentions of learned advocate for opposites. 23. Another contention that was taken by the learned advocate for opposite before us is that, RR.No. HKG 99 was installed in the name of Amaramma W/o. Nagaraj R/o. Basavanna Camp, these complainants are resident of Harvi village, Basavanna Camp is 2 to 3 Kilo meter away from the Harvi village said Amaramma not filed any affidavit evidence in this regard and it is his submissions that, complainant are not at all related to one Amaramma W/o. Nagaraj R/o. Basavanna Camp. 24. In support of these submissions, he relied on Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4, no doubt in document Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 the said Amaramma W/o. Nagaraj is shown as resident of Basavanna Camp on whose name RR.No. HKG 99 installed. 25. The learned advocate for complainant seriously dispute these documents on so many grounds and he relied on document Ex.P-2 which is the certificate issued by the Secretary Gram Panchayat, Harvi. 26. The contentions of opposites and their documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4 cannot be accepted to hold that, Amaramma W/o. Nagaraj is the consumer of RR.No. HKG 99 of Basavanna Camp in the light of Ex.P-2 which is the certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat Harvi village on 01-07-09, we cannot find any defects in issuing certificate by said secretary who is an independent officer of Gram Panchayat. It is recent document rather than Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-4, opposites not shown before us as to how this secretary is interested towards complainant for creating such official certificate Ex.P-2, under the said circumstances we are of the view that, Ex.P-2 is an acceptable document and there on we hold that, these complainants are resident of Harvi village wherein RR.No. HKG 99 is installed. 27. Another contention that was taken by the learned advocate for opposites in this case is that, complainants 1 to 7 in C.C.No. 70/09 & complainant in C.C. No. 71/09 and deceased Basamma W/o. Lingappa & Basamma W/o. Hanumantha are not at all residing in one house and they cannot be called as a joint family members and they are not residing along with Amaramma W/o. Nagaraj who is a consumer under RR.No. HKG 99, there are no specific pleadings to that effect, as such he requested us not to consider as all of them are residing in one house under RR. HKG 99. In support of this submission he relied on the ruling reported in 2004 (1) KCCR 662 K. Gopalreddy (deceased by Lrs) V/s. Suryanarayana and Others. 28. In the said case, their lordships of the Honble High Court of Karnataka observed as when party approach the court with pleadings and issues, he shall prove his case and suit has to be decided on the merits and demerits of the case, weakness of the defendant cannot be considered. 29. The main contention of the learned advocate for opposite is that, parties have not pleaded their jointness and residing in one house jointly and thereby they cannot be allowed to prove new facts which are not pleaded and they cannot take advantage of the weakness of the opposites. 30. The learned advocate for complainant in both the cases denied such contention. In the light of the submissions made on both sides on this point, we have referred the facts pleaded in the complaint in CC No. 70/09 & 71/09. In 70/09 they are specifically pleaded that, the complainants are leaving jointly in a house just in front of the electricity pole in the similar way complainant in 71/09 pleaded same facts. 31. The deceased Basamma W/o. Lingappa is none else then the wife of complainant No-1, complainant No- 2 to 7 are the sons and daughters Lingappa and deceased Basamma in C.C. No. 70/09. 32. Amaramma W/o. Nagaraj on whose name RR.No. HKG 99 is standing is none else then the wife of complainant No-3 Nagaraj. 33. The deceased Basamma W/o. Hanumantha in C.C. No. 71/09 is none else then the natural mother of minor complainant PW-1 in 71/09 who is the mother of deceased Basamma W/o. Hanumantha as pleaded by the complainant in Para- 3 of her complaint in C.C. No. 71/09, the complainant No-1 Lingappa in C.C. No. 70/09 is an uncle of deceased Basamma W/o. Hanumantha. 34. In view of the close relationship of complainant Nos. 1 to 7 in C.C. No. 70/09 and complainant No. 71/09, the presumption is that, all of them are joint family members, affidavit-evidence of PW- 1 & 2 in C.C. No. 70/09 and affidavit-evidences of PWs-1 to 3 in C.C. No. 71/09 are sufficient to hold that, all of them are residing together in house wherein RR. No. HKG 99 installed at Harvi village, there are no evidences from the opposite to destroy such presumption as is available under Hindu Law, hence we have not find any variance in between the pleadings and proofs by the complainants in both the cases. Hence we rejected this contention of the opposites. 35. As regard to negligence is concerned, we have appreciated the evidences of PW- 1 & 2 who are the husband and sons of deceased Basamma in C.C. No. 70/09, in the similar way we have appreciated the evidences of PWs- 1 to 3 in C.C. No. 71/09 with regard to the death of Basamma W/o. Hanumantha. In addition to those affidavit-evidences we have referred FIR copy of the complaint at Ex.P-1, Ex.P-6 Police Report, Ex.P-9 P.M. Report, Ex.P-10 Inquest Report and Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 Police Case Diary clearly reveals the fact that, the live main service wire hanging on the roof of tin-shed came in contact with the tins placed on the roof and thereby current passed to the tins and passed to the J-wire which was using for to place wet cloths for to dry up the cloths which shows negligence of these opposites in non-maintaining safe distance of the live wire from the tin roof. In view of such negligence of opposites this unfortunate incident took place in which two ladies died on the spot due to electrocution, as such the affidavit-evidences and documentary evidences placed before us by the complainant in both the cases are accepted to hold the negligence of the opposites by rejecting all the contentions of the opposites in both the cases and thereby we answered Point No-1 in C.C. No. 70/09 and Point No-1 in 71/09 as in affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 36. Admittedly deceased Basamma W/o. Lingappa was aged about (50) years as per PM Report at Ex.P-9, she died leaving behind complainant No-1 as her wife and complainant Nos-2 to 7 as her sons and daughters. 37. Deceased Basamma W/o Hanumantha in C.C. No. 71/09 was aged about (26) years at the time of her death as per P.M. Report at Ex.P-10 she died leaving behind her minor daughter complainant. 38. The learned advocate for complainant submitted following rulings to follow the principles of the said rulings in deciding the quantum of compensation in both the cases:- 1. 2004 ACJ 972 Bihar State Electricity Board V/s. Lacto Shah and Others. 2. 2001 (VIII) SC 197 Latwadia & Others V/s. State of Bihar & Others. 3. 2009 (3) Civil Law Journal 482 SC Smt. Sarla Verma & Others V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation & Others. 39. Further he requested us to follow multiplier method in assessing quantum of compensation amount as observed by their lordships of the Supreme Court. 40. The learned advocate for opposites submitted that, the facts of the rulings referred above are not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand and thereby requested us not to take note of the above said rulings. 41. We have gone through the principles of the said rulings and also we have gone through the observations of the Supreme Court in G.M. Kerala SRTC V/s. Susma Thomas reported in 1994 (2) SCC 176, we have also considered the affidavit-evidences of PWs 1 to 3 in both the cases and of the opinion that, there are no evidences to assess the loss of future income, status of the family and other related factors before us, under such circumstances, we have taken note of the entire case of the complainants in C.C. No. 70/09 and came to a conclusion that all these complainants are entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- as a compensation amount due to negligence of these opposites. 42. As regards to the deficiency in service is concerned, in C.C. No. 70/09, complainants are entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the opposites 1 to 3 jointly and severally. In the similar way all of them are entitled to get an amount of Rs. 2,500/- towards cost of litigation, as such all the complainants in C.C. No. 70/09 are entitled to get total amount of Rs. 1,57,500/-. The complainants are also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount. 43. As we have already taken note of the aged of the deceased Basamma W/o. Hanumantha her family status and other related materials and we came to a conclusion that awarding lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as a compensation to the complainant is proper and just, accordingly the complainant in C.C. No. 71/09 is entitled to recover a lumpsum amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the opposites 1 to 3 jointly and severally. 44. As regards to the deficiency in service is concerned, in C.C. No. 71/09 complainant is entitled to get a lumpsum amount of Rs. 5,000/- from the opposites 1 to 3 jointly and severally. In the similar way she is entitled to get an amount of Rs. 2,500/- towards cost of litigation, as such the complainant in C.C. No. 71/09 is entitled to get total amount of Rs. 2,07,500/-. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount, accordingly we answered Point No-3. POINT NO.3:- 45. In C.C. No. 70/09 & 71/09 in view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 to 3 in the said cases, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER The complaint filed by the complainants 1 to 7 in C.C. 70/09 is partly allowed with cost. The complainants 1 to 7 are entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 1,57,500/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The complainants are also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 1,57,500/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The complaint filed by the complainant in C.C. 71/09 is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover total amount of Rs. 2,07,500/- from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. The complainant is also entitled to recover future interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on total amount of Rs. 2,07,500/- from the date of this complaint till realization of the full amount from opposite Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Opposites 1 to 3 are hereby granted one month time to make the above payment separately to complainant in both the cases from the date of this judgment. Keep the copy of this judgment in C.C. No. 71/09. Intimate the parties accordingly. Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 25-03-10) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
