Andhra Pradesh

Anantapur

CC/94/2019

Muthrasi Rajanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Superintendent Engineer,APSPDCL - Opp.Party(s)

B.Narayana Swamy

19 Apr 2022

ORDER

Date of filing:      17.08.2019

Date of disposal: 19.04.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ANANTHAPURAMU.

PRESENT: Smt.M.Sreelatha, President

Kum.D.Grace Mary, Lady Member

Sri B.Gopinath, Member

Tuesday, the 19^th day of April, 2022

C.C. No.94/2019

Between:

 

1.     Muthrasi Rajanna S/o Late M.Channappa.

 

2.     Muthrasi Vijaya Bhaskar S/o Muthrasi Rajanna,

Minor, aged about 10 years.

 

3.     Muthrasi,

        Minor, Aged about 11 Months.

 

 

        Complainants 2 & 3 are minors,

        Represented by next friend 1^st complainant,

father on behalf of the complainants 2& 3.

 

        All are residing at Chinnampalli Village,

Settur Mandal, Ananthapuramu District.               …       Complainants

 

Vs.

 

1.     The Superintending Engineer,

        APSPDCL., JNTU College Road,

Ananthapuramu.

 

2.     The Assistant Engineer,

        APSPDCL., Settur Sub-Station,

Settur Post & Mandal,

Ananthapuramu.                                         …        Opposite Parties

 

        This case is coming for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri B.Narayana Swamy, Advocate for the complainants and Sri N.Ravikumar Reddy, Advocate for the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 and after perusing the material papers on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, the Commission delivered the following.

 

O R D E R

 

Kum.D.Grace Mary, Lady Member:-

 

Above referred complaint got filed their complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Seeking for compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- towards death of complainants family member, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. 

2.     Averments of the complaint, in brief, are that the complainants are husband, son and daughter of deceased Muthrasi Dhanalakshmi, respectively. The deceased Muthrasi Dhanalakshmi was hale and healthy and she was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by doing agriculture coolie work and the said amount were spending for the family. On 20.11.2018 at 2.00 P.M., the above said Muthrasi Dhanalakshmi washed cloths of her family by hand and with an intention to dry up the said cloths she tried to putting the cloths on one wire.  But the above said Muthrasi Dhanalakshmi did not know that the wire was touched the wire of the Electricity Department which was damaged and fell on the wire which is using for dry up the washed cloths. As a result Muthrasi Dhanalakshmi got electric shock and she fell down unconsciousness. Immediately, the neighbours by name M.Venkatesulu and others shifted Muthrasi Dhanalakshmi to Government Hospital at Kalyandurg. After examination, the duty Doctor of Government Hospital at Kalyandurg declared Muthrasi Dhanalakshmi as dead.  The criminal case was also registered in Crime No.95/2018 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure instead of 304 (A) IPC before Settur Police Station.

3.     The people in the locality have made number of complaints to the              2^nd opposite party, but the 2^nd opposite party has not take any steps to fix the high tension wire properly. Due to  which, Muthrasi Dhnalakshmi  died at her young age  and due to untimely death of the deceased, the complainants lost their earning member and they lost their consortium and the  complainants 2 & 3 have lost their maternal love and affection. It is the bounden duty of the opposite parties 1 &2 to keep the power supply in a proper way, but due to the negligent act of the department people, the complainants have lost their family member who is the breadwinner of the family and her death is not compensated in terms of money. The complainants had got issued a legal notice dt.15.07.2019 to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 requesting to pay compensation towards the death of  Muthrasi Dhanalakshmi due to negligent acts of the department people i.e., the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 having received the said notice, there is no response from the opposite parties                     1 & 2. Hence, they are liable to pay compensation.

4.     The 2^nd opposite party filed counter, the 1^st Opposite Party filed a memo adopting the counter of the 2^nd opposite party.

5.     Refuting the averments of the complaint, in the counter the                         2^nd opposite party contended that the complainants were put to strict proof to all the allegations which were not admitted therein by the 2^nd opposite party.

6.     The 2^nd opposite party mentioned in their counter the complainants have to approach Civil Court, and this authority has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint because in this negligence aspect is involved. This Commission has jurisdiction only when there is deficiency in service, but here deficiency of service is not involved. Hence this Commission has no jurisdiction, the department is responsible when there is cut and fallen of 11.K.V or 33 K.V. line but not for internal things. Further in this case the deceased died due to her own negligence. Hence, the opposite parties are not liable for payment of compensation,

7.      The allegation that on 21.11.2018 the deceased washed cloths an intention to dry up the said cloths she tried to put the cloths on wire and the said wire touched the wire of the department which was damaged and fell on the wire  which is using for dry up the washed cloths and got electric shock and died  is not true. The allegation that are mentioned in the complaint and police records are different from this case it is very clear that the deceased died due to her own negligence.

8.     On 20.11.2018 the deceased in house  while removing the single phase motor plug at the  motor in her home without witching off the supply, and she directly removed the plug from the motor and she hold the plug and the live plug with hand and came in contact with the live wire and got electrocuted. From this it is very clear that there is no negligence and hence this department is not liable for payment of compensation.

9.     In order to establish the above rival contention the 1^st complainant and the 2^nd opposite party adduced their evidence Muthrasi Rajanna - 1^st complainant filed evidence on affidavit as PW1 and placed reliance on Ex.A1 to A6. Ex.A1 is the attested copy of Post-Mortem examination report issued by the Government Hospital, Kalyandurg. Ex.A2 is the attested copy of FIR in Crime No.95/2018 dt.21.11.2018 of Settru Police Station. Ex.A3 is the attested copy of Inquest Report. Ex.A4 is the office copy of legal notice dt.15.07.2019 got issued by the complainants to the opposite parties. Ex.A5 is the postal receipts. Ex.A6 is the Xerox copy of regulation of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission in Regulation No. 2 of 2017 with regard to compensation to victims of electrical accidents.

10.    On the other hand on behalf of the 2^nd opposite party G.V.Nagendra Babu Assistant Electrical Engineer, APSPDCL, Ananthapuramu has filed the evidence on affidavit as RW-1 on behalf of the 2^nd opposite party. No documents filed by the 2^nd opposite party and hence no documents marked on behalf of the 2^nd opposite party. The 1^st opposite party filed memo adopting the evidence on affidavit of RW-1 (2^nd opposite party) and the same is recorded.

11.    Heard both sides.

12.    Now, the points for consideration and determination are:

1.     Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the

        opposite parties against the complainants?

2.     Whether the complainants are entitled for the claimed reliefs 

        as prayed for?

3.     To what relief?

 

13.    POINT No.1:- The version of the complainant No.1 in chief affidavit stated that his wife i.e., deceased washed cloths of her family members with intention to dry up the cloths she tried to put them on a wire infront of her house. She does not know that wire belongs to opposite parties wire laid down near to that pole and was supply to that wire which was hatched by the deceased and got electric shock and fell unconscious. Immediately she shifted to Government Hospital, Kalyandurg after examination the duty doctors declared she is died.

14.   The argument of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the deceased died due to her own negligence. Hence the opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation as there is no deficiency of service on their part. The other contention of the opposite parties is that the averments of complaint and the complainants given to the police, are different.  In our view  when we go through the documents  which were relied by the complainant i.e., Ex.A2 FIR along with complainants complaint “మేము కూలి పనులు చేసుకుంటూ  మా  ఊరిలో  వర్షాలు  పడనందున నీరు  అడుగంటి  త్రాగడనికి  కూడా లేక  పంచాయతీ  వారు  వదిలే  నీరు  టైమింగ్  ప్రకారం  వదులుతారు  అవి వదిలితే   మేము  కూలి  పనికి పోయి వచ్చే లోపల  నీరు  బందు ఆయిపోతాయి అని మా ఇంటి దగ్గర  ఒక గుంత ఏర్పాటు  చేసుకొన్నాము.  అయితే  నీళ్లు  ఆ గుంతలోనికి  వస్తే  అక్కడ నుండి  మా ఇంటికి  ఒక మోటారు  పెట్టుకొని  నీరు పట్టుకొంటాము. అదేక్రమములో నిన్నటి దినము 20-11-2018  మధ్యాహ్నం  2  గంటల  సమయంలో  నా భార్య  ధనలక్ష్మి  గుంతలోకి వచ్చిన  నీటిని  మోటార్  వేసి  పట్టుకోవడానికి  వెళ్లి  నీళ్లు  పట్టిన తరువాత  బోర్డు లో నుండి  వచ్చిన  వైరుకు  మోటారుకు మధ్యలో  ఒక కనెక్షన్  స్విచ్ పెట్టినారు దానిని  నా భార్య  ధనలక్ష్మి  తేమ  చేతులతో  పీకుతుండగా  అకస్మాత్తుగా  కరెంటు  షాక్ ఎడమ చేతి  అరచేతికి  తగిలి అక్కడికిఅక్కడే  పడిపోయినది. Whereas in the complaint and PW-1 evidence stated that the deceased was died when she tried to dry up the cloths by putting them in a wire near infront of her house totally contra. Under Ex.A3 inquest report  issued by the doctors of  Government Hospital, Kalyandug, clearly stated that  the deceased was died while she was removing the plug from the socket.  Ex.A2 & A3 are not tallied with averments of the complaint, it gives suspicion about the cause of death. The complainants failed to prove that there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties and the death was caused due to the electrocution is not established by the complainants. Hence, the question of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties does not arise. Hence this point is answered against the complainants.

15.POINT NO.2:-  The complainants claimed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- towards death of Muturasi Dhanalaksmi, Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and deficiency of service and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses.  In view of the discussing supra in point No.1, this point is answered in favour of opposite parties by observing that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The question of granting compensation does not arise. Hence the complainants are not entitled any compensation as their claim. The complainants failed to prove the case.

16.POINT NO.3:-  In the result, the complaint  is dismissed  but no costs in the circumstances.

Typed by the stenographer, to my dictation and after correction pronounced by me in the open commission on this the 19^th day of April, 2022.

 

       

                  Sd/-                                                            Sd/-                                                                      Sd/-

               MEMBER,                                               PRESIDENT                                                         MEMBER

DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION,  DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION,    DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION,

                ANANTHAPURAMU                             ANANTHAPURAMU                                      ANANTHAPURAMU

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EVIDENCE ON CHIEF AFFIDAVIT

ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS:

 

PW1:         Muthrasi Rajanna, 1^st complainant.

 

ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

RW1:         G.V.Nagendra Babu, Assistant Electrical Engineer, APSPDCL of

2^nd opposite party.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS

 

Ex.A1:       Attested copy of Post-Mortem report  dt.21.11.2018 issued by

                the Government Hospital, Kalyandurg.

Ex.A2:       Attested copy of FIR in Crime No.95/2018 dt.21.11.2018 of

                Settur Police Station.

Ex.A3:       Attested copy of Inquest Report.

Ex.A4:       Office copy of legal notice dt.15.073.2019 got issued by the

                Complainants to the opposite parties.

Ex.A5:       Postal receipts.

Ex.A6:       Regulation of Andhra Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission

                in Regulation No.2 of 2017.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

-NIL

 

       Sd/-                                                                Sd/-                                                                           Sd/-

   MEMBER,                                                        PRESIDENT                                                       MEMBER

DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION,

             ANANTHAPURAMU                             ANANTHAPURAMU                             ANANTHAPURAMU