State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
.Vardhireddy Prabhavathi, ... vs The Post Master General,Kurnool. on 3 April, 2014
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT TIRUPATI. FA No.452/2013 against CC.No.116/2012 District Consumer Forum, Kadapa Y.S.R.District. Between: 1.
Vardhireddy Prabhavathi, W/o.V.Pulla Reddy,
2.Vardhireddy Ashok Reddy S/o.V.Pulla Reddy, Both are residents of D.No.5 of Chirajupalli Village, Yerraguntla Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.
Appellant/Complainant.
And
1.The Post Master General, Divisional Post Office, Kurnool.
2.The Postal Superintendent, Proddatur HPO, Proddatur, Kadapa.
3.The Branch Post Master, Chirajupalli Branch, Chirajupalli Village, Yerraguntla Mandal, Y.S.R.Kadapa District.
4.The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 40-383, Bhupal Complex, Park Road, Kurnool Town and District.
Respondents/Opp.Parties.
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s.Srinivas Karra.
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s.V.Vinod Kumar (for R.1 To R.3) M/s.N.Mohan Krishna (for R.4) QUORUM: HONBLE JUSTICE SRI GOPALAKRISHNA TAMADA, HONBLE PRESIDENT, AND SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER, THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN .
Oral Order (Per Honble Justice Sri Gopalakrishna Tamada, Honble President) ******* The appellants are the complainants and this appeal is preferred against the order dated 18th January, 2013 made in CC.No.116/2012 whereby the District Consumer Forum, Kadapa refused the claim of the complainants and dismissed the complaint.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
So many facts have been narrated by the complainants, but in our considered view all the said facts may not be necessary and in nutshell the facts are that the complainants are the residents of Chirajupalli village, Yerraguntla Mandal of YSR District. The husband of the first complainant during his life time opened S.B. account bearing No.2401652 in 3rd opposite party Branch Post Office on 30.03.2010. At the time of opening of the said account, he paid an amount of Rs.15/- as insurance premium covering the risk of accidental death for an amount of Rs1,00,000/-. On 19.9.2010 the said Pulla Reddy i.e. the husband of the first complainant due to power cut went up to the terrace of his house and tried to connect the said electric wire to the main line. In the process, he got an electric shock and on account of which he fell down and immediately thereafter he was taken to the hospital where the doctors observed that his backbone was fractured and on their advice he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool for treatment and while undergoing treatment he died at about 10.15 P.M.on 20th September, 2010.
When the Insurance Company repudiated the claim by its letter dated 09.10.2012, the complainants approached the District Forum and filed the complaint claiming the amount covered under the policy i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- and compensation of Rs.10,000/- and costs of Rs.10,000/-.
The said complaint was resisted by the opposite parties 1 to 3 by filing written version stating that the deceased V.Pulla Reddy has opened a S.B. Account bearing No.2401652 on 30.03.2010 at Chirrajupalle Branch Office, Chilamakur SO and paid an amount of Rs.15/- towards premium. The BPM has submitted the schedule copy dated 30.03.2010 to Proddatur H.O and the Post Master, Proddatur H.O has submitted the schedule copy to the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kurnool. As per the tie up between the Department of Posts and the Insurance Company the responsibility of the Department is only to collect premium amount. The Insurance Company alone is responsible for payment of the amount covered under the policy. There is no deficiency of service on their behalf.
The 4th respondent filed counter stating that the petitioners i.e. complainants are not speaking the truth and they suppressed some material facts relating to the cause of death of the deceased. For accidental benefit policies, the death must be purely accidental. There is no deficiency of service on their behalf.
During the course of hearing Exs.A.1 to A.14 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Exs.B.1 to B.10 were marked on behalf of the opposite parties. Having considered the entire material on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the death of the first complainants husband was not on account of any accident and it was purely on account of his own negligence the said death had occurred and accordingly dismissed the said complaint.
As stated supra, the said order is challenged before us.
Heard. In our considered view, the District Forum is justified in arriving at the conclusion that the death of the 1st complainant husband was due to his negligence only and it can never be treated as an accident. Rule 36 sub rule 2 of the Indian Electricity Rules envisages that no person shall work on any live electric supply line or apparatus and no person shall assist such person on such work unless he is authorised in that behalf and takes the safety measures approved by the inspector. From the above rule it is clear that no person shall try to handle the live electric service connection. Even according to the complainants as there was power cut to their house on 19.09.2010, the first complainants husband went up to the terrace and tried to handle the live electric wire and during the course of which he was electrocuted accidentally and died. The said admission made in the complaint filed by the complainant clearly indicates that the death was not an accident. The first complainants husband is not a person who is allowed to handle the live electric wire. It is only the persons from the electricity department who are authorized to handle the said electric wires and while handling the said electric lines they shall take all precautions. In the instant case the first complainants husband can be termed as an unauthorized person who was handling the electric wire due to power cut. In those circumstances, we cannot hold that the said death of the 1st complainants husband was an accident and she is entitled to get the accidental death benefit. These aspects were gone into by the District Forum while dismissing the complaint.
We see no reason to interfere with the said order passed by the District Forum and accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
(PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) Dt: 03.04.2014.
Vvr.