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 28th day of October, 2010
C.C.NO.97/2010
Between:
1. Smt.Vetti Syamalamma
W/o Late Vetti Sunkappa
2. Vetti Chiranjeevi
S/o Late Vetti Sunkappa
aged about 12 years,
3. Vetti Sreekanya
D/o Late Vetti Sunkappa
aged about 10 years,
4. Vetti Rajasekhar
S/o Late Vetti Sunkappa
aged about 8 years
2 to 4 are minors being rep. by their
mother/natural guardian/1st complainant
All are residing at Raketla Village
Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapur District. … Complainants.
Vs.
1. The Superintendent Engineer
A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Near Milk Dairy
Engineering College Road
Anantapur.
2. The Assistant Engineer,
A.P.C.P.D.C.L.
Uravakonda (M)
Anantapur District. … Opposite parties.
This case coming on this day for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri B.Narayana Swamy and Sri B.Venkatasiva Reddy, advocates for the complainants and Sri D.Sreedhar and Sri 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.4,90,000/-, which includes loss of earnings of Rs.3,50,000/-, loss of love and affection of Rs.75,000/-, mental agony of Rs.50,000/- and funeral and death ceremony expenses of Rs.15,000/- with costs.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that: -The complainants are permanent residents of Raketla Village, Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapur District and living by coolie. The 1st complainant’s husband and complainants 2 to 4 father late Vetti Sunkappawas was cultivating the agricultural wet land belonging to one Nettem Prabhakar S/o Nettem Yerri Swamy in Sy.No.252 of Raketla land as tenant and raising paddy crop and was earning a sum of Rs.50,000/- per year. While so, the deceased went to the said agricultural land, which he was cultivating on 01-05-2010 at 4.00 A.M. to water the paddy crop. The deceased came into contact accidentally to his left leg KV 11 live electric wire, which was lying in the water canal on the said land, which was cut off from the main line, which was passing on the said land. The deceased fell down in the canal and died immediately on the spot due to electric shock. One Meesala Ganganna S/o Vannappa, resident of Raketla Village was watering the paddy crop in the adjacent land as a tenant at the same time noticed the deceased, who was lying in the canal dead due to electric shock and he immediately went to the Village and informed the same to the 1st complainant and parents of the deceased and some of the Villagers. A complaint was lodged at Uravakonda P.S. and the same was registered as Cr.No.74/2010 under section 174 Cr.P.C. The inquest was held over the dead body and the postmortem was conducted at Government Hospital, Uravakonda. The debased died of the electric shock as the live wire was lying in the small water canal in the land due to the negligence and defect service of the opposite parties. Hence, the opposite parties are liable to pay to the complainants the amount as claimed in the complaint 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 for realization of the alleged compensation amount. There is no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite party. It is contended that the deceased was not at all died due to electric shock at the alleged scene of offence. In fact, there is no supply to 11 K.C. lines , which was cut and fallen on the ground of the owner of the deceased agricultural land. In fact, the electrical supply was disconnected to the above 11 K.V. line at Amidala Sub Station on 30-04-2010. Since then no power supply is passing through the above 11 KC lines. Hence, the question of deceased died due to electric shock does not arise. There is no negligence on the part of the department and the department is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants. The amount claimed by the complainants towards the compensation is highly excessive and disproportionate to the circumstances of the case. 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 a 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 there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 for not properly
maintaining electric live wire, which was cut and a result the deceased Vetti Sunkappa
died by coming into contact with the live wire while attending to his agricultural work? If so, whether the complainants are entitled for the compensation amount as claimed in the complaint from the opposite parties?
- To what relief?
6. To prove the case of the complainants, the evidence on affidavit of the 1st complainant has been filed as PW1 and also evidence on affidavits of the witnesses of the complainant has been filed as PW2 and marked Exs.A1 to A4 documents. On behalf of the 2nd opposite party, evidence on affidavit of 2nd opposite party has been filed. No documents have been marked on behalf of the 2nd opposite party. On behalf of 1st opposite party evidence on affidavit has not been filed. No documents have been marked.
7. Heard both sides.
8. POINT NO.1:– The evidence on affidavit of the 1st complainant is that her husband late Vetti Sunkappa on 01-05-2010 went to the agricultural land at about 4.00 A.M. to water the paddy crop and came into contact with accidentally a KV 11 live electric wire, as it was cut off from the main line which was passing on the agricultural land and lying in the small water canal of the said agricultural land. Her husband died on the spot due to the electric shock. A case was registered at Uravakonda Police Station u/s 174 Cr.P.C. in Cr.No.74/10. Ex.A1 is F.I.R. Inquest was held over the dead body of her husband on the same day. Ex.A2 is inquest report. Postmortem was conducted on the dead body of her husband at Govt. Hospital, Uravakonda. Ex.A3 is Postmortem Certificate. Ex.A4 is household ration card for her identity. Her children and she have been thrown into streets due to sudden death of her husband due to negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
9. PW2 E.Venkateswarulu stated in his evidence on affidavit stated that he is working as Doctor in Govt.General Hospital, Uravakonda. On 01-05-2010 he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of one Vetti Sunkappa S/o Vetti Ganganna (deceased), who was resident of Raketla Village in Uravakonda Mandal. The cause of death of the deceased is due to electrocution.
10. The 2nd opposite party filed evidence on affidavit of P.Mahesh Kumar, Assistant Engineer, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Uravakonda . He stated in his evidence on affidavit that the deceased was not at all died due to electric shock at the alleged scene of offence. In fact there is no supply of 11 K.V. line, which was cut and fallen on the ground of the owner of the deceased agricultural land. In fact, electrical supply was disconnected to the above 11 K.V. line at Amidala Sub Station on 30-04-2010 to take up some repairs. Since then no power supply is passing through the above 11 K.V. line. Hence, the question of deceased died due to electric shock does not arise at the scene of offence. There is no negligence on the part of this opposite party. The department is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants.
11. As seen from Ex.A1 Xerox copy of F.I.R., it goes to show that a case in Cr.No.74/10 was registered by Uravakonda P.S. on 01-05-2010 under section 174 Cr.P.C. accidental death due to electrical shock and the time of the incident is mentioned as 01-05-2010 at 4.00 A.M. The deceased name is mentioned as Vetti Sunkappa, aged 34 years son of Vetti Ganganna of Raketla Village, Uravakonda Mandal, Anantapur District. The said F.I.R. was registered basing on the complaint given by the 1st complainant, who is wife of the deceased. The 1st complainant in her complaint has stated that on 01-05-2010 at 4.00 A.M. her husband went to the paddy fields for watering paddy crop and he came into contact with electric live wire, which was fell on the canal, as a result her husband died due to shock. One Ganganna S/o Vannappa saw the said incident and informed the same to her and also to the Villagers. Thereafter she along with her parents in laws and others went to the place of incident and saw that her husband was died due to electric shock. Hence, requested the Police to enquire into the case.
12. As seen from Ex.A2 Xerox copy of the inquest report, it goes to show that inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased and inquest panchayatdars came to conclusion that the deceased died due to electric shock when he came into contact with live electric wire, which was fell into canal in his land when he went there to water his paddy fields.
13. As seen from Ex.A3 postmortem examination report, it goes to show that the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Uravakonda has conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Vetti Sunkappa on 01-05-2010 from 1.00 P.M. onwards and he has opined that the deceased died due to electrocution about 10 to 20 hours prior to postmortem examination.
14. As seen from Ex.A4, it goes to show that the deceased was given household card and in Ex.A4 the family members’ details of the deceased are give wherein the complainants are shown as family members of the deceased.
15. Thus, the evidence on affidavits of the 1st complainant as PW1 and PW2 coupled with Exs.A1 to A3 clearly goes to prove the fact that the deceased died due to electric shock when he came into contact with live electric wire, which was cut off and fell in the canal when the deceased went to the agricultural land to water his paddy crop.
16. Though R.W.1. P.Mahesh Kumar Assistant Engineer, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Uravakonda has stated in his evidence on affidavit that there was no electric supply since 30-04-2010 at the incident place and that the deceased did not die due to electric shock., except the said oral evidence of R.W.1.P.Mahesh Kumar Assistant Engineer, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Uravakonda, the opposite parties have not placed any material evidence to prove that the electricity supply was disconnected from 30-04-2010 onwards since the electric wire was cut and fell at the place of incident. Therefore, the said oral evidence on affidavit of R.W.1. P.Mahesh Kumar Assistant Engineer, A.P.C.P.D.C.L., Uravakonda cannot be accepted.
17. Therefore, on considering the said facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to come to conclusion that the deceased died due to electric shock on account of the electric wire, which was cut off and fell into the canal which came into contact with the deceased when the deceased went to his land for watering his paddy fields. Thus, there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties for not immediately removing the electric wire from that place, which was cut off and fell into the canal. Therefore, the complainants are entitled for damages for the death of the deceased.
18. On perusal of Ex.A1 F.I.R., Ex.A2 Inquest Report and Ex.A3 Postmortem Report, it goes to show that the age of the deceased is mentioned as 34 years by the date of his death. The 1st complainant has stated in her evidence on affidavit that the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/- per year, but she has not placed any material to show that how much land the deceased has taken on lease for cultivation and how much he was getting paddy crop per year after paying the lease amount to the land owner. Therefore, the said evidence on affidavit of PW1 that the deceased was getting Rs.50,000/- per year can not be accepted. However, considering the fact that the deceased being agriculturist, it is quite probable to believe that he would be attending to agricultural labour work in the Village for his lively hood and getting not less than Rs.100/- per day and if it is taken into consideration for 25 days in a month excluding Sundays, he would be getting Rs.100/- X 25 = Rs.2, 500/- per month. Out of the said amount, the deceased would be spending for himself 1/3rd amount and if it is deducted it will come to Rs.2,500/3X2=Rs.1,666.67 and if it is calculated per year it will come to Rs.1, 666.67X12 Rs.20,000/-. The said amount of Rs. 20,000/- will be the contribution to the family of the deceased per year. The deceased was aged about 34 years at the time of his death. Therefore, the appropriate multiplier is 17 and if it is calculated on the said amount of Rs.20,000/- with multiplier 17, it will come to Rs.20,000/- X 17=Rs.3,40,000/- . Thus, the complainants are entitled for compensation of Rs.3,40,000/- for the death of the deceased. Apart from that the complainants are also entitled for loss of love and affection for a sum of Rs.25,000/- and funeral expenses of Rs.5,000/- in all the complainants are entitled for Rs.Rs.3,70,000/-. Therefore, the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainant Rs.3,70,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of death of the deceased i.e., from 01-05-2010 till the date of realization. Accordingly, this point is answered.
19. POINT NO.2: - In the result, the complaint is allowed and the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- for the death of the deceased, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses in all Rs.3,70,000/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 01-05-2010 till the date of realization with costs of Rs.5,000/-. The said amount shall be payable by the opposite parties 1 & 2 within one month from the date of this order. Out of the said amount of Rs.3,70,000/- all the complainants are entitled for equal share and the minors complainants share amount shall be kept in the Fixed Deposits in the Nationalized Bank till they attain majority.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in open
Forum, this the 28th day of October, 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 – Photo copy of F.I.R. in Cr.No.74/10 of Uravakonda P.S.
Ex.A2 - Photo copy of Inquest Report on the dead body deceased Vetti Sunkappa
Ex.A3 - Photo copy of Postmortem Report issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community
Health Centre, Uravakonda.
Ex.A4 - Photo copy of Household card relating to family of the complainants.
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSTE PARTIES 1 & 2
- NIL –
MALE MEMBER LADY MEMBER PRESIDENT
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM
ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR ANANTAPUR.
Typed by JPNN
