State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Junior Engineer M S E D Co. Ltd. vs Smt Parvati W/O Sahadeo Kakade on 22 December, 2015
1 F.A..No.:379/2014
Date of filing :16.07.2014
Date of order :22.12.2015
MAHARASHTRA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL
COMMISSION,MUMBAI, CIRCUIT BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
FIRST APPEAL NO. :379 OF 2014
IN COMPLAINT CASE NO.: 33 OF 2012
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : LATUR.
1. Junior Engineer,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.,
Next to Osmanabad Janta Sahakari Bank Ausa,
Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur.
2. Assistant Executive Engineer,
Sub Divisional Office,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. ,
Near Azim School, Tuljapur Road,
Ausa, Tq.Ausa, Dist.Latur.
3. Executive Engineer,
Divisional Office,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.,
Nilanga, Tq.Nilanga,
Dist.Latur.
4. Superintending Engineer,
Latur Circle Office,
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd. ,
Behind Yashwant Primary School,
Latur, Tq & Dist.Latur. ...APPELLANTS
VERSUS
1. Smt.Parvati Sahadeo Kakde,
R/o Jawalga Po, TQ.Ausa,
Dist.Latur.
2. Dadasaheb S/o Sahadeo Kakde,
R/o Jawalga Po, Tq.Ausa,
Dist.Latur.
3. Sau Balika Yuraj Deshmukh,
R/o Rajegaon, Tq.Ausa,
Dist.Latur. ...RESPONENTS
2 F.A..No.:379/2014
CORAM : Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial
Member.
Smt.Uma S.Bora, Hon`ble Member.
Present : Adv.Mr.S.V.Mundhe for appellants, Adv.Mr.S.S.Shinde for respondents.
O R A L JUDGMENT (Delivered on 22nd December 2015) Per Mr.S.M.Shembole, Hon`ble Presiding Judicial Member.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.03.2014 passed by District Consumer Forum, Latur partly allowing complainant's claim in C.C.No.33/2012 directing appellants/opponents to pay to the complainants compensation Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. and further Rs.2000/- more towards cost of the proceedings.
(For the sake of brevity appellant MSEDCL is hereinafter referred as opponents and respondents as complainants)
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that:-
Late Sahdev Kakde who was husband of complainant No.1 and father of complainant Nos.2 & 3 was a consumer of MSEDCL. He was having electric connection in his house. Opponents are engineers of MSEDCL. In the year 2011 Late Sahdev has built a room in his house. Electric service wire from electric pole was provided in his house. Electric service wire supporting G.I.wire was passing on the newly constructed room.3 F.A..No.:379/2014
3. On 2.1.2011 at about 5.30 p.m. when Late Sahdev was on the roof of newly constructed room for water curing, he came in touch with G.I.wire which was attached to the service wire and got electric shock. It is alleged that GI wire was charged by electric energy due to negligence on the part of opponents. Due to electric shock Sahdev fell down and died due to electrocution. His nephew Balaji Kakde saw the incident and with the help of wood removed service wire from the pole and with the help of person from village carried Sahdev to the Hospital at Ausa where he was declared dead. Accordingly Balaji gave information to the police and on the basis of information accidental case was registered with Police Station, Killari, Dist.Latur. Police visited the spot and prepared spot panchanama. Autopsy was also conducted on the dead body. A medical officer who conducted autopsy gave cause of death as "death due to electrocution". According to the complainants, opponents are being responsible for the death of Sahdev liable for compensation. Therefore alleging deficiency in service on the part of opponents they have filed complaint claiming compensation Rs.4,25,000/- and Rs.5000/- more towards cost.
4. In response to the complaint notice, opponents appeared before the Forum and by their written version resisted the complaint on the following among other grounds:-
They did not dispute that Sahdev died due to electrocution as he came in contact with GI wire which was attached to service wire, which was provided to the house of Late Sahdev. However, they have denied that electricity was passing through GI wire due to negligence on their part. It is submitted that Sahdev might have lifted the service wire while water curing on the constructed room by which electricity might have passed through GI wires. Thus according to them Late Sahdev himself was negligent and therefore they are not responsible 4 F.A..No.:379/2014 for the same. They have denied all other adverse averments made by complainants and submitted to dismiss the complaint.
5. On hearing both side and considering evidence on record District Consumer Forum held that due to negligence on the part of opponents, electricity was passing through GI wire and therefore Late Sahdev got electric shock while water curing to the newly constructed room. It is further held that opponents 1 & 2 committed deficiency in service by maintaining service wire properly and therefore they are liable for the death of Sahdev. In keeping with these findings Dist.Consumer Forum partly allowed complainant's claim as noted above.
6. Feeling aggrieved by that judgment and order, opponents came to this Commission in appeal.
7. We heard learned counsel for both side and perused the written notes of argument submitted by them. We have also perused the copy of impugned judgment and order, copies of complaint, written version, panchanma, report of Electrical Inspector and other documents.
8. Almost all the facts except the contention of complainants that due to negligence on the part of opponents, electricity was passing through GI wire which was attached to the service wire given to the house of complainants, are not disputed. Therefore the crux in this matter is as to whether opponents are responsible for the death of Sahdev Kakde or not?
9. Mr.Mundhe learned counsel appearing for opponents submitted that GI wire is used for support of service wire and electricity never passes in the GI wire unless by any disturbance. It is further submitted that late Sahdev Kakde while water curing to the newly constructed room of his house might have lifted service wire which 5 F.A..No.:379/2014 was passing from the roof of same room and thereby the same service wire might have disturbed. Due to disturbance it could have touched to the electric wire of same LT line from where service wire was supplied to the house of complainants and Sahdev who was curing water got electric shock. Thus according to him it was negligence on the part of Late Sahdev and not opponents. He also supported his contention by relying on the report of Electrical Inspector. On perusal of copy of the report of Electrical Inspector we find much force in the submission of Mr.Mundhe learned counsel for the opponents. Copy of the report of Electrical Inspector reflects that due to lifting service wire by Late Sahdev Kakde, GI wire which was attached to service wire touched with phase wire from LT line and Sahdev got electric shock etc.
10. Per contra, Mr.S.S.Shinde learned counsel appearing for the complainants denied and submitted that report of Electrical Inspector is being unfounded cannot be relied on. It is further submitted that though the incident occurred on 2.1.2011 Electrical Inspector visited the spot after 25 days and by making enquiry made such imaginary report. Therefore District Consumer Forum rightly disbelieved the same report of Electrical Inspector that due to negligence on the part of Late Sahdev Kakde he got electric shock and died on the spot. But we find little force in the submission of Mr.S.S.Shinde learned counsel for the complainant. Because undisputedly there was no complaint prior to the date of incident about passing electricity through G.I.wire attached to the service wire. Therefore the contention of complainants that due to negligence on the part of opponents electricity was passing through GI wire is being unfounded, cannot be accepted. Unless the service wire is disturbed by anyone or by storm etc, in our view electricity cannot be passed through the GI wire attached to service wire. Therefore report of Electrical Inspector that due to lifting service wire by Late Sahdev its connection from pole was disturbed and electricity passed through GI wire is being more probable and 6 F.A..No.:379/2014 reasonable, cannot be disputed. But it appears from the copy of impugned judgment and order that District Consumer Forum without any cogent evidence on record committed error in holding that electricity was passing through the GI wire due to negligence on the part of opponent etc. such erroneous finding cannot be sustained.
11. Moreover it is submitted by Mr.Mundhe learned counsel appearing for the opponents that when the service wire was already provided to the house of complainants from the electric pole, they should not have made construction of room under service wire. According to him they should have got shifted the service wire away from that construction and should not have touched the service wire. But no application for the same was given to the opponents. Not only this but prior to the date of incident there was no such complaint about service wire provided to the house of complainant as well as the houses from other villagers etc. Considering the undisputed facts that there was no earlier complaint we have no hesitation to accept the argument advanced by Mr.Mundhe learned counsel for the opponent.
12. Moreover even if it is presumed that electricity was already passing through GI wire, unless deceased Sahdev Kakde touched to the GI wire lifting service wire he should not have got electric shock. Therefore contention of opponent's that Late Sahdev himself acted negligently by lifting service wire cannot be disputed.
13. For the foregoing reasons it is obvious that incident occurred due to negligence on the part of Late Sahdev and not on the part of opponents. But it appears from the copy of impugned judgment and order that District Consumer Forum committed error in holding that incident occurred due to negligence on the part of opponents in maintaining service wire properly etc. Such findings of the District Consumer Forum are being erroneous, cannot be sustained.
7 F.A..No.:379/201414. In the result, appellant succeeds and appeal deserves to be allowed. Hence the following order.
O R D E R
1. Appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and order is set aside.
2. Consumer complaint stands dismissed.
3. No order as to cost.
4. Copies of the judgment be supplied to both the parties.
Sd/- Sd/- Uma S.Bora, S.M.Shembole, Member Presiding Judicial Member Mane