BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM :: WARANGAL
Present : Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu,
President.
And
Sri Patel Praveen Kumar,
Member.
Monday, the 16th day of May, 2011.
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.54/2009
Between:
1) Rakam Kommalu, S/o Narsaiah, Age: 26 yrs,
Occ: Agriculture, R/o Lingagiri (V),
Chennaraopet (M), Warangal District.
2) Pambi Kousalya, W/o Laxmaiah, Age: 60 yrs, Amended as per order
Occ: Household, R/o Jalli (V), in IA 30/10, dt.7-05-10.
Chennaraopet (M), Warangal District.
3) Pambi Laxmaiah, S/o Chandraiah, Age: 65 yrs,
Occ: Nil, R/o Jalli (V),
Chennaraopet (M), Warangal District.
… Complainants
And
1. The Chairman & Managing Director
A.P.Transco, Vidyuth Soudha,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
2. The Chairman & Managing Director
APNPDCL, Neat NIT Petrol Pump,
Kazipet, Hanamkonda, Warangal.
3. The Superintending Engineer, Operation,
APNPDCL, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda,
Warangal.
4. The Divisional Engineer, APNPDCL Operation Circle,
Mahabubabad, District Warangal.
5. The Asst.Divisional Engineer, Operation,
APNPDCL, Operation, Nekkonda, Warangal District.
6. The Asst.Engineer, Operation, APNPDCL,
Chennaraopet, District Warangal.
… Opposite parties
Counsel for the Complainant No.1 :: Sri K.Vijaya Bhaskar Rao, Advocate
Counsel for the Complainant No. 2 & 3 :: Sri B. Srinivas, Advocate
Counsel for the Opposite parties :: Sri M.Sadasivudu, Advocate.
This complaint is coming for final hearing before this Forum, the Forum pronounced the following order.
CC 54/2009 -- 2 --
ORDER
Sri D. Chiranjeevi Babu, President.
This complaint is filed by the complainants against the opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for a direction to pay Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation.
The brief averments contained in the complaint filed by the complainants are as follows:
The case of the complainants is that the complainant No.1 is the husband of the deceased R.Sunitha. The complainants 2 and 3 are the parents-in-law of complainant NO.1. On 07-11-07 at about 2.00 p.m. the wife of complainant No.1 R.Sunitha who was in Agricultural land going to Agricultural well to have her lunch, on the way one 11 K.V. Electrical Wire which is fell down on the ground having power touched to R.Sunitha, due to which she received electrical shock and died on the spot. On information, the Police Chennaraopet, registered a case U/S 174 of Cr.P.C. The opposite parties are responsible persons for the said incident and are liable to pay compensation to the complainant. The complainant No.1 got issued legal notice to opposite parties through RP dated 22-12-2008 for which no reply is received. Hence, filed this complaint praying to direct the opposite parties to grant compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-.
Subsequently as per order in IA 30/2010 dated 07-05-2010 the parents of the deceased are added as parties i.e, complainant No.2 and complainant NO.3 and they contested the matter. Against the said order, complainant No.1 preferred an Appeal before the Hon’ble A.P.State Commission, Hyderabad vide RP No.47/2010 and the same was dismissed and the District Forum is directed to dispose of the matter expeditiously. Observing that without influencing the observations made in this regard while we allow the proposed parties to be impleaded as parties without prejudging the matter as to the question whether they are legal heirs and is left to be determined in the main complaint. So as per the State Commission order now this Forum has to decide who are the legal heirs of the deceased Sunitha.
The opposite party NO.5 filed the Written Version stating that this case is not maintainable either in law or on the facts of the case and the same is liable to be dismissed. Further stated that the opposite party No.1 neither an appropriate party nor to the party directly or indirectly or control over on other opposite parties, but the APTRANSCO was wrongly made as party by
CC 54/2009 -- 3 --
the complainant, under which circumstances opposite party No.1 made as party to the alleged incident or to the cause of action to this case does not understand. The alleged incident is only incident, it might have caused at the negligence of the deceased herself, and the opposite parties neither met with any deficiency of service nor directly involved with the incident and requested this Forum to dismiss this case.
The opposite parties 1 to 4 and 6 filed a Memo adopting the Written version of opposite party No.5.
The complainants in support of their claim, filed the Affidavits of complainant NO.1 and complainant No.2 in the form of chief examination and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of opposite parties M.Venkata Narayana filed his Affidavit in the form of chief examination but not marked any documents.
Now the point for consideration is:
1) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
2) If so, to what Relief?
3) Whether the complainant NO.1 or complainant No.2 and 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased.
Point NO.1:-
In this case admittedly either the complainant No.1 or complainant No.2 and 3 i.e, father and mother of the deceased have not filed any Succession Certificate obtained from Civil Court. It is the duty of complainant No.1 to file Succession Certificate i.e, he is the legal heir of the deceased. As per the Succession Act, the husband comes under I Class heir, thereafter only the parents of the deceased comes under the second class heirs of the deceased Sunitha. To prove that either the parties have not filed any documentary proof. Further in this case as per the arguments of complainant NO.2 and complainant No.3’S Advocate that the deceased was divorced at the time of accident i.e, the divorce took place in between the deceased and complainant NO.1. When the divorce took place in between the deceased and complainant NO.1, the complainant No.1 is not the first class heir and he is not entitled to get any compensation.
CC 54/2009 -- 4 --
Further as per Ex.A-8 it was given by Panchayat Secretary of Zilli Village. This document shows that the deceased Sunitha, Aged 25 yrs, household, Village Zilli, Chennaraopet Mandal, Warangal District, accidentally she died due to one 11 K.V. Electrical Wire which is fell down on the ground having power touched to R.Sunitha, due to which she received electrical shock and died on the spot. Previously i.e, prior to the death of Sunitha she took divorce with complainant NO.1 i.e, Kommalu. The death funerals also performed by the parents of the deceased i.e, complainant No.2 and 3 only. Except this document there is no other document to show that complainant NO.1 and the deceased took divorce. But it is an authenticated document and it shows that the deceased and complainant No.1 took divorce.
Further Ex.A-9 it is another declaration document, it also shows that the deceased on 07-11-2007 at about 2.00 pm while she was going to agriculture well to have lunch, one 11 K.V. Electrical Wire which is fell down on the ground having power touched to R.Sunitha, due to which she received electrical shock and died on the spot. Thereafter the mother was informed to police and they registered a case in Crime No.185/07 and the police conducted Inquest, thereafter the death funerals of the deceased performed by complainants 2 and 3 only. So as per Ex.A-8 and A-9 those documents clearly goes to show that that the deceased was a divorcee and death funerals of the deceased was performed by parents of the deceased i.e, complainant No.2 and complainant No.3. Thereafter the complainant No.1 filed this case before this Forum to get compensation for the accidental death of the deceased. But in this case as per Ex.A-8 and A-9 it is clear that the deceased took divorce with complainant No.1 and death funerals were performed by complainants 2 and 3. So when the deceased is divorcee certainly the complainant No.1 is not entitled to get compensation. So he is not the legal heir of the deceased Sunitha because as per Ex.A-8 the divorce took place in between the complainant No.1 and the deceased Sunitha.
Further the counsel for opposite parties argued that the complainant No.2 and 3 are not the parents of the deceased. Further he has not filed any document to show that they are not the parents of the deceased. But as per Ex.A-6 i.e, Inquest Report in Col. No.1 in Sub Clause I Pambi Laxmaiah, S/o Chandraiah, Munnuru kapu, 2) Pambi Kaosalya, W/o Laxmaiah, Munnurukapu, they both of them are deceased’s father and deceased’s mother. So as per Inquest it is clear that complainant NO.2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. We accept the Inquest Report and come to the
CC 54/2009 -- 5 --
conclusion that complainants No.2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. So in this case the only legal heirs are complainant No.2 and 3, but not complainant NO.1. As per Ex.A-8 and A-9 it is clear that the divorce took place in between the complainant No.1 and the deceased Sunitha. When the divorce took place in between them, the complainant No.1 is not entitled to get anything.
We accept these documents i.e, Ex.A-8 and A-9 and come to the conclusion that only the complainants 2 and 3 are competent to file this case and they are the only legal heirs of the deceased Sunitha, but not complainant NO.1 and complainant No.1 is no locusstandi to file this case.
The counsel for the opposite parties argued that both complainant NO.1 and complainant NO.2 and 3 are not entitled to get anything because there is no error on the part of the opposite parties. For this our answer is that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties because as per complaint, Inquest and FIR i.e, Ex.A-5 it is clear that one 11 K.V. Electrical Wire which is fell down on the ground having power touched to R.Sunitha, due to which she received electrical shock and died on the spot. It is the duty of the Electricity Department to look after the wires whether current is passing or not. But here it is an admitted fact that on the basis of Ex.A-5 and A-6 at the time the deceased went to Agricultural well to have lunch, one 11 K.V. electrical wire touched the Sunitha, she fell down and current was passing, she died, So the Electricity Department i.e, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation. Further how much the opposite parties have to pay compensation to the complainants No.2 and 3. As per Ex.A-10 dated 19-06-09 the Chief Engineer already wrote a letter stating that he has sanctioned an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- on compassionate grounds to the legal heirs of the deceased Sunitha, W/o Kommalu, Age 25 yrs, Lingagiri Village, Chennaraopet Mandal, on 7-11-2007 at about 12.00 hours. So already they admitted in the said letter they are going to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased. So in this case the complainants No.2 and 3 are the legal heirs of the deceased, they are only
entitled to get compensation for the death of the deceased, but not complainant NO.1 because he took divorce from the deceased Sunitha, so the opposite parties are liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainants 2 and 3 only.
CC 54/2009 -- 6 --
For the foregoing reasons given by us we come to the conclusion that the complainants 2 and 3 are only entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties and we answered this point accordingly in faovur of the complainants 2 and 3 against complainant NO.1 and opposite parties.
Point NO.2 To what Relief:- The first point is decided in favour of the complainants NO.2 and 3 this point is also decided in favour of complainants NO.2 and 3 against complainant No.1 and opposite parties.
In the result the complaint is allowed and we direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.One lakh only) to the complainants 2 and 3 towards compensation. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.500/- (Rs.Five hundred only) towards costs.
A month’s time is granted to the opposite parties for the compliance of the order. The complainants 2 and 3 are entitled Rs.50,000/- each.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum today, the 16th May, 2011).
President Male Member
District Consumer Forum, Warangal.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of Complainants On behalf of Opposite parties
Affidavits of Complainants No.1 & 2 filed Affidavit of Opposite party NO.5 filed
EXHIBITS MARKED
ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT
01. Ex.A-1 is the office copy of legal notice issued to opposite parties, dt.22-12-2008.
02. Ex.A-2 is the Returned Cover.
03. Ex.A-3 & A-4 are the Acknowledgments.
04. Ex.A-5 is the First Information Report.
05. Ex.A-6 is the Inquest.
06. Ex.A-7 is the Report of Postmortem Examination.
07. Ex.A-8 is the Certificate issued by Panchayat Secretary, Jalli Village.
CC 54/2009 -- 7 --
08. Ex.A-9 is the Certificate of deceased’s father to Sarpanch, Jalli village.
dt.6-07-04.
09. Ex.A-10 is the letter from opposite party NO.5 granting of Exgretia
amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.
10. Ex.A-11 is the letter from complainants 2 & 3 to opposite party NO.3.
ON BEHALF OF OPPOSITE PARTIES
NIL
PRESIDENT
