DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ANANTAPUR.
PRESENT: - Sri C.Thyagaraja Naidu, B.Sc., B.L., President
Smt.S.Lalitha, Member, M.A., M.L.,
Sri S.Niranjan Babu, B.A., B.L., Male Member
Thursday, the 18th day of November, 2010
C.C.NO.112/2010
Between:
1. Smt.Pulakurthi Sujathamma
W/o Late Thimmappa
2. Smt.Pulakurthi Santhamma
W/o P.Mareppa
3. Pulakurthi Mareppa
S/o Yellappa
All are residents of Thammepalli Village
D.Hirehal Mandal, Anantapur District. … Complainants.
Vs
1. The Superintendent Engineer
A.P.C.P.D.C.L.,
Engineering College Road
Anantapur.
2. The Assistant Engineer
A.P.Transco,
D.Hirehal Mandal,
Anantapur District. … Opposite Parties.
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri B.Narayana Swamy, advocate for the complainants and Sri D.Sreedhar and N.P.Sreenivasulu, advocates for the opposite parties 1 & 2 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Forum delivered the following:
O R D E R
Sri C.Thyagaraja Naidu, President: - This complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties 1 & 2 to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.4,63,000/- which includes future earnings of Rs.3,50,000/-, loss of love and affection of Rs.50,000/-,mental agony and pain of Rs.50,000/-,funeral expenses of Rs.10,000/- and other expenses of Rs.3,000/- for the death of the Thimmappa s/o P.Mareppa due to eclectic shock.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: -The complainants are permanent residents of Thammepalli Village of Anantapur District living by coolie work. The 1st complainant is the wife and the complainants 2 & 3 are the parents of late Thimmappa. The husband of the 1st complainant late Thimmappa was aged about 24 years and was hale and healthy and earning Rs.6,000/- per month by coolie and agriculture and was sole bread winner of the family. On 11-02-2010 at about 10.00 P.M. while ceremony of the physical maturity (becoming pushpavathi) of the daughter of the younger brother of the 3rd complainant was being celebrated at the house of the complainants it happened to pass electricity through the neutral wire of the main line, resulting so also to the neutral wire of the service connection of the complainants house and the wires were burnt resulting the power passed to the iron beams, which were fixed support to the roof of the house and also to the iron pillar, which was erected supporting the verandah of the front portion of the house. The husband of the 1st complainant touched the iron pole of the verandah of the house and received electric shock and died on the spot and on that day some of the houses of the colony of the complainants received electric shock. The incident happened due to negligence of the opposite parties in maintaining the electric lines in the colony in good condition. A criminal case was registered at D.Hirehal Police Station in Cr.No.10/2010 under section 174 Cr.P.C. and the inquest was held on the dead body. Later postmortem was held over the dead body at Community Health Centre, Rayadurg. Due to the sudden death of the deceased, their family was put to severe loss, hardship and miseries with the loss of major bread winner of the family. The deceased died due to negligence of the opposite parties in maintaining of electric line in the colony of the complainants in good condition. Hence, the complainants filed this complaint against the opposite parties 1 & 2 directing them to pay the amount as claimed in the complaint as compensation for the death of the deceased with costs.
3. The 2nd opposite party filed counter and contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and the remedy of the complainants are if any, they have to file civil suit before the civil court for realization of the alleged compensation amount. The alleged electrocution took place as the complainants took the supply unauthorizedly from the nearby L.T. over head line by means of hooks with jointed sub-standard service wire and the service wire was twisted to iron angular bar in verandah. Because of usage of non-standard service wire and failure of insulation of joints iron bar was electrocuted. It is invented that on the same day electric shock took place in some other houses for the purpose of filing this unjust complaint. In fact, no such incidents were happened in the Village. The alleged accident was caused purely on negligence act of the deceased and the complainants herein. This opposite party in no way responsible for the alleged incident happened in any way. This opposite party denied the other averments mentioned in the complaint and contended that the complaint filed by the complainants is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The 1st opposite party filed memo adopting the counter filed by the 2nd opposite party.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the deceased Thimmappa died due to electric shock on account of not properly maintaining electric line by the opposite parties 1 & 2 in the Village of the deceased? If so, whether the complainants are entitled in respect of the amount claimed in the complaint as compensation from the opposite parties 1 & 2?
2. To what relief?
6. To prove the case of the complainant, evidence on affidavit of 1st the complainant, evidence on affidavit of the doctor, who conducted postmortem examination and evidence on affidavit of the 3rd complainant has been filed as P.W.1,P.W.2 and P.W.3 and marked Exs.A1 to A4 documents. On behalf of the opposite parties 1 & 2 evidence on affidavit of the 2nd opposite party has been filed and marked Exs.B1 to B4 documents.
7. Heard both sides.
8. POINT NO.1:- It is an admitted fact that on 11-02-2010 at 10.00 P.M. there was a function in the house of the deceased P.Thimmappa and due to electric shock the deceased P.Thimmappa died. Thereupon P.W.3.P.Mareppa father of the deceased P.Thimmappa gave complaint to before Herahal P.S., who registered the complaint as Crime No.10/2010 u/s 174 Crpc of Herahal P.S on12-02-2010 (Ex.A1) and subsequently held inquest over the dead body of P.Thimmappa (ExA2) and thereupon sent the dead body of P.Thimmappa for P.M.Examination to Government Hospital Rayaadurg and P.W.2 Dr. Ramanjaneyulu conducted P.M.Examination on 12-02-2010 over the dead body of the deceased P.Thimmappa and issued P.M.Cetificate opining that the deceased died due to electrocution (Ex.A3).
9. The counsel for the complainants contended that the evidence on affidavits of P.Ws.1 & 3 and Exs. A1 to A3 documents goes to prove the fact that the deceased died due to electric shock as electricity passed through the neutral wire of the service connection of the complainants house and wires were burnt, resulting the power passed through iron beams which were fixed supporting the roof of the house and the iron pillar which was erected supporting the veranda of the front portion of the house and the deceased touched the iron pillar of the veranda of the house and received shock and died on the spot and on that day some of the houses in the said colony also received electric shock. He contended that the evidence on affidavit of the Doctor P.W.2 Dr.Ramanjaneyulu who conducted postmortem examination on 12-02-2010 over the dead-body of Pulakurthi Thimmappa and issued Ex.A3 P.M. Certificate goes to prove the fact that Pulakurthi Thimmappa died due to electrocution. Thus the deceased P.Thimmappa died due to deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the opposite parties in maintaining the electric lines in the street of their village in good condition. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay to the complainants’ compensation as claimed in the complaint. In support of his contention, he placed reliance in the reported decision:
III (2009) CPJ 170 A.P.State Consumer Disputes Reddressal Commission, Hyderabad between Northern Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., & others Vs. Yedelli Kantha Rao, wherein it was held that “ Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 2(1)(g) and 14(1)(d) – Electricity – Electrocution – Compensation granted by Forum – Hence appeal – Contention substandard wires used by one ‘A’ dislocated from wooden pole due to heavy rains – Permitting use of substandard wires for supply of power itself ex-facie negligence on part of O.P. – Live wires laid on wooden poles not inspected by O.P. – Deficiency in service proved – O.P. held liable to pay compensation. “
10. The counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 contended that Exs.B1 to B4 documents marked on behalf of the opposite parties clearly goes to prove the fact that the electricity connection was disconnected to the house of the complainants in the year 2006 and since then there was no electricity supply to the house of the complainants till 04-11-2010 and on 04-11-2010 the complainants under Ex.A4 paid Rs.1527/- to the service connection No.133 towards arrears and also paid Rs.50/- towards connection charges. Thus it clearly goes to prove the fact that there was no electricity supply to the house of the complainants on 11-02-2010. Therefore, the question passing electricity through neutral wire from the main electric line wire to the neutral wire of the complainant house does not arise. He contended that on 11-02-2010 i.e. on the date of this incident the complainants took the electric supply unauthorizedly from the nearby L.T. over head line by means of hooks with jointed sub-standard service wire and the service wire was twisted to iron angular bar in verandah within the house of the complainants. Due to failure of insulation to substandard wire, power supply was passed to the iron angular and when the deceased touched the electric iron angular with his hands and due to eclectic shock he died within the house of the complainants due to his negligence only. He contended that except oral evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2 i.e. complainants 1 & 3, there is no independent evidence to prove the said fact. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties in maintain the electric lines in good condition in the village of the complainants. Therefore, the complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
11. In reply the counsel for the complainant contented that though the complainants have not paid the arrears of electricity consumption charges but the electricity supply was not disconnected and there was electricity supply to the house of the complainants on 11-02-2010 and due to the negligence of the opposite parties in maintain the electric lines in good condition in the village of the complainants the deceased P.Thimmappa died.
12. The 2nd opposite party in his evidence on affidavit has stated that the complainants are not having any authorized service connection to their house, that the complainants took the electric supply unauthorizedly from the nearby L.T. over head line by means of hooks with jointed sub-standard service wire and the service wire was twisted to iron angular bar in verandah and failure of insulation of joints iron bar was electrocuted and when the deceased touched the electric iron angular with his hands and due to eclectic shock he died within the house of the complainants due to his negligence only and except that incident, there was no other incident took place in the said village.
13. Ex.B1 relates to SC.No.133 is in the name of P.W.3.Mareppa showing consumption, billing, collection and arrears history from Nov, 2006 till Oct.2010. As per Ex.B1 the amount due as on Nov, 2006 is shown as Rs.5714/- and the amount due as on Oct, 2010 is shown as Rs.1527/-
14. In this matter on 01-11-2010 arguments were heard posted to 15-11-2010 for orders and in the mean while the complainants Under Ex.A4 on 04-11-2010 have paid Rs.1527/- towards arrears of current charges and Rs.50/- towards connection charges in respect of their SC.No. 133.
15. Thus Ex.B1 and EX.A4 goes to prove the fact that the complainants after payment of arrears of electricity charge under Ex.A4 as shown in Ex.B1 the electricity connection was restored to the complainant’s house only after 04-11-2010 but not before that date.
16. The complainants have not filed the evidence on affidavits of the villagers to prove that there was electricity supply to the house of the complainants by the date of the incident in which the deceased P.Thimmappa died due to electric shock and there was electricity supply from the main neutral wire the to the neutral wire to the house of the complainant as well as to the other houses in lane of the complainants house as stated by P.W.1 & P.W.3 in their affidavits. Therefore, the evidence on affidavits of the complainants P.W.1 & P.W.3 cannot be accepted in the absence of the independent witnesses’ evidence.
17. Therefore, on considering the said facts and circumstances, we are of the view that it requires elaborate evidence from both sides to prove as to how the said incident has happened in which the deceased P.Thimmappa died and the decision cited by the counsel for the complainant referred above do not apply to the facts of this case. Therefore, we direct the complainants if so desires to file Civil Suit against the opposite parties for claiming damages for the death of the deceased P.Thimmappa. Accordingly, this point is answered.
18. POINT NO.2:- In the result, the complaint filed by the complainants is dismissed with a direction to the complainants if so desires to file Civil Suit against the opposite parties for claiming damages for the death of the deceased P.Thimmappa. In the circumstances, each party do bear their own costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum this the 18th day of November, 2010.
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT: ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOISITE PARTIES:
-NIL- - NIL-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT
Ex.A1 – Attested copy of FIR in Cr.No.10/2010 of D-Hirehal P.S.
Ex.A2 - Attested copy of Inquest report held over the dead body of deceased Thimmappa.
Ex.A3 - Attested copy of Postmortem Certificate held over the dead body of the deceased
Thimmappa.
Ex.A4 - Original Electricity Bill dt.04-11-2010 for Rs.1577/- issued by the opposite parties.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSTE PARTIES
Ex.B1 - Consumption, Billing, collection and arrears History during the period November, 2006
to November, 2010 issued by the opposite parties.
Ex.B2 - True copy of letter dt.08-10-2010 given by the 3rd complainant to the 2nd opposite
party.
Ex.B3 - True copy of letter given by the 3rd complainant and others given to the 2nd opposite
party.
Ex.B4 - True copy of letter given by the 3rd complainant and others given to the 2nd opposite
party.
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
