BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.NO.15 OF 2006 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM RANGA REDDY
Between:
1. The Managing Director
A.P. Transco Ltd.
Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
2. The Assistant Engineer
A.P.Transco Ltd.
Miyapur Sub-Station
Hyderabad-500 050
Appellants/opposite parties no.3 & 4
A N D
1. Yanamala Mangamma
W/o. Late Ramulu
Age: 26 years
2. Yanamala Venkata Rao
S/o. Late Ramulu, Age: 13 years
3. Yanamala Rani
D/o. Late Ramulu, Age: 11 years
4. Yanamala Manasa
D/o. Late Ramulu
Aged: 7 years
All are R/o. 2-SW/34, Stalin Nagar
Near Prashanthinagar, Miyapur
Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy Dist.
Respondents/Complainants.
5. Life Style Communications
Rep. by N.Praveen
Mamata Estate, Allwyn Colony
Miyapur, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy Dist.
6. Seven Hills Star Network
Rep. by K. S. Prasad
Plot No. 296, Prashanthi Nagar
Miyapur, Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy Dist.
Respondents/opposite parties No.1 and 2
Counsel for the Appellants: Sri A.Jaya Raju
Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4 Sri V.Narayana Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents No.5 Sri V.S.Raju
OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.15 OF 2006
Between:
Life Style Communications
Presently known as
M/s. Life Style Communications Pvt. Ltd.
Rep. by its Director V. Janaki Rama Raju
Having its office at Mamata Estate
Allwyn Colony, Miyapur
Hyderabad-500 050
Ranga Reddy Dist.
Appellant/opposite party no.1
A N D
1. Yanamala Mangamma
W/o. Late Ramulu
Age: 26 years
2. Yanamala Venkata Rao
S/o. Late Ramulu, Age: 13 years
3. Yanamala Rani
D/o. Late Ramulu, Age: 11 years
4. Yanamala Manasa
D/o. Late Ramulu
Aged: 7 years
All are R/o. 2-SW/34, Stalin Nagar
Near Prashanthinagar, Miyapur
Hyderabad, Ranga Reddy Dist.
Respondents/complainants
5. Seven Hills Star Network
Rep. by K. S. Prasad
Plot No. 296, Prashanthi Nagar
Miyapur, Hyderabad-500 050
R.R.Dist.
6. The Managing Director
A.P. Transco Ltd.
Khairatabad, Hyderabad.
7. The Assistant Engineer
A.P. Transco Ltd.
Miyapur Sub-Station
Miyapur, Hyderabad-500 050
Ranga Reddy.
Respondents/opposite parties no.2 to 4
Counsel for the Appellants: Sri V.S.Raju
Counsel for the Respondents No.1 to 4 Sri V.Narayana Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents No.5 Sri A.Jaya Raju
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
&
SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY FOURTH DAYOF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND TEN
Oral Order ( As per R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)
***
1. Both appeals are directed against the same order passed by the District Forum. F.A.No.319 of 2008 was filed by the opposite parties no.3 and 4 while F.A.No.962 of 2010 has been filed by the opposite party no.1. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the complaint.
2. The facts of the case relevant for disposal of the appeal are that the complainants obtained cable network connection to their house from the opposite parties no.1 and 2 on a monthly subscription of Rs.130/-. The complainants obtained electricity service connection no.1105030807 to their house from the opposite parties no.3 and 4. On 21.2.2005 at about 8 p.m. while the husband of the complainant no.1 and their children were watching the TV in their house, suddenly a spark was emitted from the TV whereof the husband of the complainant no.1 attempted to disconnect the cable connection apprehending occurrence of shock circuit but he met with electric shock and fell on the ground. He was shifted to the Gandhi Hospital for treatment where, he subsequently died. The police Miyapur registered a case in Crime No.45 of 2005 u/s 304 (A) and 337 of IPC.
3. The Stalin Nagar Welfare Association lodged complaint with the opposite parties no.3 and 4 for allowing the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to make use of the electric poles for fixing the cable wire and for not maintaining proper distance between the electric conductors and cable wire. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 had not followed the provisions of the television network regulation Act, 1995 and the rules concerned. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 neglected to maintain the electric lines to ensure safety of human being, animal and property. The composite negligence of the opposite parties no.1 to 4 resulted in the death of the husband of the complainant no.1 who used to work in a stone crushing company and earned `300/- to `500/- per day. The complainant got issued notice through their advocate on 19.10.2005 to the opposite parties with a demand for an amount of `4 lakh for the death of the husband of the complainant no.1.
4. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 remained exparte.
5. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 though appeared through their advocate, had not chosen to contest the case by filing counter.
6. The complainant no.1 has filed her affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A13.
7. The District Forum has allowed the complaint holding that the husband of the complainant no.1 died due to electric shock which was the result of the negligence of opposite parties no.1 to 4 and awarded an amount of `2 lakh with interest @ 9% per annum to be paid in equal proportion by the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and the opposite parties no.3 and 4.
8. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum opposite parties no.3 and 4 filed appeal F.A. No.319 of 2008 contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and that the allegations of the complaint are directed against the opposite parties no.1 and 2 only as also that the opposite parties no.1 and 2 negligently and illegally fixed their cable wire by mixing up with electric wires and as such liability cannot be fastened on the opposite parties no.3 and 4. Further it was contended that until a complaint is made bringing to the notice of the opposite parties no.3 and 4 about the illegal fixing of the cable wire within the premises of the complainant the opposite parties no.3 and 4 would not be in a position to know the facts and take appropriate remedial measures. It was further contended that FIR was lodged against the opposite parties no.1 and 2 and the complaint filed before the District Forum is an off shoot of after thought to gain wrongfully from the opposite parties no.3 and 4.
9. The opposite party no.1 has filed appeal No.962 of 2010 contending that the District Forum has passed the impugned order without issuing notice to them and set them exparte without hearing them. The accident was occurred due to the short circuit on account of the negligence of the opposite parties no.3 and 4. The inquest report and report of postmortem examination would show that the husband of the complainant no.1 died due to electric shock and the District Forum held that the opposite parties no.3 and 4 are only liable for the cause of death of the deceased. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 also had not disputed the cause of death of the deceased due to electric shock circuit. It was contended that there is no power transmission while transmitting the channels to the local operators by the opposite party no.2 which is a multi system operator and the opposite party no.1 which is a partnership firm purchased shares of the company from the directors, Janardhan Reddy and Sadasiva Reddy.
10. The point for consideration is whether the husband of the complainant no.1 died due to electric shock?
11. The power supply through service connection no.1105030807 to the house of the complainant as also the cable network connection to their house is not disputed. On the fateful date of 21st February 2005 at about 8 p.m., the complainants along with the husband of the complainant no.1 were watching TV and at that time spark was emitted by the TV whereon the husband of the complainant no.1 attempted to disconnect the cable connection and was subjected to electric shock. He was shifted to Gandhi Hospital Secunderabad where he died subsequently while undergoing treatment and these facts are evident by the inquest and postmortem examination report.
12. The complainants have relied upon the paper clipping wherein it was stated that accident often occurred due to the single transformer installed within the limits of sherlingampally municipality and that the TRANSCO department neglected to fix caps to the fuse boxes as also the wires fixed for earthing were not insulated. The president of the welfare association Tandra Kumar opined that the husband of the complainant no.1 sustained the injuries as a result of negligence of the cable operators and the Transco department officials. The complainant no.1 has got issued notice dated 19.10.2005 reiterating the events that led to the death of her husband and claimed an amount of `4 lakh on account of untimely death of her husband.
13. The opposite parties had not given reply to the notice dated 19.10.2005. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 had not chosen to contest the claim of the complainants before the District Forum. The contention of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 that no notice was served on them in the complaint. The docket order dated 18.4.2006 indicates that notice was served on the opposite parties no.1, 3 and 4 whereas opposite party no.2 has not claimed to receive the notice. The endorsement to the effect that the opposite party no.1 has received the notice and that the opposite party no.2 refused to receive the notice constitutes effective service of the notice on them. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the opposite parties no.1 and 2 to state now that there was no service or improper service of notice on them in the complaint.
14. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 had laid reliance upon the FIR, report of postmortem examination and inquest report to contend that the husband of the complainant no.1 died due to electric short circuit. A perusal of the FIR would show that the complaint was lodged to the effect that the husband of the complainant no.1 sustained electric shock while removing the cable connection as he noticed short circuit and while shifting to the hospital, he died due to the injuries. The police Miyapur conducted inquest over the dead body of the husband of the complainant no.1 wherein the panch witnesses opined that the husband of the complainant no.1 sustained injury to the thumb, forefinger and middle finger of his left hand. The doctor who conducted postmortem examination over the body of the deceased issued postmortem examination report with his opinion that the husband of the complainant no.1 died due to electrocution.
15. The cable wire was entwined with the electric supply wire and the opposite parties no.1 and 2 or the opposite parties no.3 and 4 had not exercised minimum care in laying out the polls and while installing the wires at the houses of the consumers. The opposite parties no.3 and 4 had not taken any action on being approached by the Stallion Nagar Welfare Association requesting fix up cover to the fuse boxes installed at the electric poles. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 had negligently laid the cable wires which the opposite parties no.3 and 4 allowed to pass touching the electric wires. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 have to leave a distance of 5ft from the electric service wires when they fix the amplifiers on the top of the electric poles. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 had not led any evidence to the effect that the 5ft distance was maintained while laying the cable wires to the house of the complainants.
16. The complainants had got issued notice dated 9.10.2005 stating that the welfare association of Stallion Nagar lodged complaint with the electricity department as also with the police concerned. It has been stated that the APTRANSCO had allowed the first and second opposite parties to fix the cable wires to the electric poles and not keeping reasonable distance between the electric conductors and the cable wires. A perusal of the documentary evidence coupled with the statement of the complainant no.1 in her affidavit would amply establish that composite negligence on the part of the opposite parties no.1 to 4. The opposite parties no.1 to 4 neglected to maintain their respective wires and failed to take steps in regard to the installation and protection of the wires so as to ensure safety of their customers.
17. The opposite parties failed to take due precautions to avoid damage that arise from the faulty supply of power, fitting of wires and apparatus. As such we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the District Forum as to the deficiency in service rendered by the opposite parties no.1 to 4 in laying the electric poles and permitting the running of electric wires and cable wires without taking steps to maintain the minimum required distance between the electric wires and the cable wires.
18. The complainant no.1 has stated that she has become widow at an young age of 26 years and burdened with the obligation of maintaining the complainant’s no.2 to 4. The husband of the complainant no.1 stated to have worked with a stone crushing company and used to earn Rs.300/- to `500/- per day. The plea regarding the income of the husband of the complainant no.1 has not been substantiated by documentary evidence or oral evidence. The deceased was aged 33 years at the time of his death as seen from the report of postmortem examination. If his income is calculated at `2,000/- per month and excluding therefrom the 1/3rd of his income towards his personal expenses, the remainder of 2/3 would to `14,000/- per month. The District Forum has come to a reasonable figure by awarding `2 lakhs as compensation. However, the rate of interest at rate of 9% per month is not justifiable by any standard or means. Usually interest is awarded as a tool of compensating the victim for being deprived of the enjoyment of the legitimate amount he is entitled to. The interest @ 9% per annum is reasonable in the circumstances that the opposite parties no.1 to 4 neglected to pay any amount despite the knowledge that dawned on them which had disclosed the negligence on the part of all the opposite parties.
In the result the appeals are partly allowed. The opposite parties no.1 and 2 directed to pay a sum of `1,00,000/- and the opposite parties no.3 and 4 directed to pay an amount of `1,00,000/-. The opposite parties shall pay interest @ 9% per annum on the amount awarded from the date of complaint till payment. No costs.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
MEMBER
Dt.24.11.2010
Kmk*
