State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Junior Engineer (Ele) vs Govindamma on 12 May, 2023
1 Appeal No.593/2019
Date of Filing : 26.03.2019
Date of Disposal : 12.05.2023
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF MAY 2023
PRESENT
Mr. K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs. M.DIVYASHREE : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO.593/2019
The Junior Engineer (Electrical)
Transmission Line Maintenance,
KPTCL, Thallak Village,
Challakere Tq., Chitradurga. ..Appellant/s
(By Smt.Padma.S.Uttur, Advocate)
Vs
1. Govindamma
W/o Siddalingappa,
Aged about 56 Years,
2. Jayalakshmi
W/o S.Balachandra,
Aged about 34 Years,
3. Ashok
S/o Siddalingappa,
Aged about 32 Years,
4. S.Siddanna
S/o Siddalingappa,
Aged about 29 Years,
R1 to R4 R/at Megalahatti Village,
2 Appeal No.593/2019
Molakalmuru Tq., Chitradurga Dist.
(R1 to R4 By Sri.B.Pramod, Advocate)
5. The Assistant Executive Engineer
BESCOM, Hanagal,
Molakalmuru Tq.,
Chitradurga Dist.
6. The Executive Engineer
BESCOM, Behind D.C.Office,
Chitradurga Town ..Respondent/s
(R5 & R6 By Sri.Prashanth.T.Pandit, Advocate)
ORDER
BY Mr.K.B.SANGANNANAVAR : Pri.Dist & Session Judge (R) - JUDICIAL MEMBER.
1. This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of CPA 1986 by OP.3/Appellant aggrieved by the order dtd.01.03.2019 passed in CC/212/2018 on the file of Chitradurga District Forum.
2. The Commission examined the grounds of appeal, impugned order, appeal papers and heard the learned counsels. (The parties to the appeal herein after referred to as their rank assigned by the Forum below and the Forum which passed impugned order as Forum below for convenience).
3. The brief facts of the case of Complainant nos.1 to 4 before the Forum below would be as they are legal representatives of one Mr.Siddalingappa, 1st Complainant is his wife, while 3 Appeal No.593/2019 Complainant nos.2 to 4 are their children and they joined together to file this complaint seeking compensation before the forum below.
4. Mr.Siddalingappa, was an agriculturist, owned land bearing sy.no.34 measuring 32 acres 1 guntas, in Hangal village of Molakalmuru taluk, comes in Chitradurga district. His earnings from agriculture was Rs.5 lakhs p.a. They have stated that was on 07.01.2017 at about 11.30a.m said Mr.Siddalingappa, was feeding his goats and sheep in his land and while doing so went towards Neem tree situate in his land to cut the branches to feed the goats and sheep by use of 'Thoti' a tool normally to be used to cut branches of tree and bushes, in the village area and while in such process tool used came in touch with 220 KV electric wire, as a result, he died at spot due to electrical burns. Accordingly, it was reported to jurisdictional police at 11.30 am.
5. They alleged against the OPs.1 to 3 as they have failed to take necessary steps to cover 220 KV electric live wires properly. The death of Mr.Siddalingappa was due to their negligent. They failed to maintain 220/66 KV high-tension line are liable to compensate the complainants as they are legal representative. 4 Appeal No.593/2019
6. The final report was submitted by jurisdictional police and when the claim is made seeking compensation was denied by the Ops 1 to 3. Hence his wife and children raised consumer complaint claiming for compensation of Rs.17 lakhs for death of Mr.Siddalingappa along with interest at 18% p.a.
7. The OPs were contested the complaint, contending that dispute raised does not come within the purview of Consumer Forum and they are not entitle for any compensation, since death of Mr.Siddalingappa was due to his negligence and not on account of negligence of OPs. In view of the rival contentions, the Forum below held an enquiry by receiving materials placed by parties, thereby allowed the complaint in part directed OP.3/Appellant herein to pay Rs.11,40,000/- along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of incident i.e. on 07.01.2017 till realisation and directed to share the compensation of Rs.9,64,000/- in favour of Complainant no.1 and Rs.50,000/- each in favour of Complainant nos.2 to 4 respectively. Further awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. It is this order being assailed in this appeal contending that the Forum below wrongly entertained the complaint, which is not maintainable under CPA 1986. Mr.Siddalingappa was not a consumer nor his legal 5 Appeal No.593/2019 representatives comes within the definition of Sec.2(d)(i) of CPA 1986 and OPs within the definition of service providers. As per Sec.82 of Indian Electricity Rules 1956, where there is electrical line running on the land, owners are not supposed to grow any trees beneath such line or adjoining such electricity lines. However they have admitted that high-tension line is running on the land of Mr.Siddalingappa. They have contended he is prohibited to grow trees or put any band or to make yard or kana as the case may be beneath electrical high-tension lines. It shows, his death was due to his own negligence and not due to negligence of OPs in particular Appellant herein. Further without prejudice to such contentions Forum below erred in awarding compensation of Rs.9,64,000/- for the loss of dependency adopting the notional income at Rs.12,000/- without appreciating that he was aged 60 years at the time of incident. Further there was no deduction made towards living and personal expenses and multiplier applied was also on the higher side.
8. On the contrary, learned counsel for Complainant nos.1 to 4 would submit that the Forum below appreciated all the materials on record commencing from certified copy of UDR, charge sheet, inquest report, PM report, RTC extract of 6 Appeal No.593/2019 sy.no.34, report of BESCOM dtd.20.03.2017 along with Ex-B1 to B9, thereby found death of Mr.Siddalingappa was due to improper maintenance of high-tension line by OP.3 and to form such opinion followed the decision of Hon'ble National Commission reported in CPJ 2010 (NC) 97 (I) in the case of N.Kunchi Babu and another vs. A.P.Transco Hyderabad and others. It would be appropriate to extract the ratio of the said decision, wherein held that "CPA 1986 - Sections 2(1)(g), 14(1)(d)
- electrocution - compensation - enhancement - wires touching balcony of house - child of 14 years age got electrocuted - legs and hands burnt - hand and fingers of both legs removed by doctors - deficiency in service, gross negligence and dereliction of duties alleged - compensation granted by Hon'ble State Commission." It is found from the enquiry as admitted by the Ops/appellants death of Mr.Siddalingappa, was due to high tension line came in contact with the loti a tool used to cut leaves of trees and bushes grown in the agricultural field in particular on the bund to feed his own sheep and goats and while in such process was burnt due to electrocution and there is no doubt that his death was due electrocution and electrocution only and even from the police papers one could able to apply the principles of 'res ipsa loquitur' that his death 7 Appeal No.593/2019 was due to improper maintenance of the high tension lines by OP.3/appellant. In other words appellant had failed to take necessary steps for proper maintenance of high-tension electric lines being a responsible officer and his non actions in that regard has to be held either negligence or rendered deficiency in services to the users and by the same time in our view Mr.Siddalingappa also has to be held equally negligent in his actions while feeding his goats and sheep used a tool touching the live electric high tension lines. In order to decide on the incident doctrine of 'res ipsa loquitur' would aptly applies was not at all considered by the forum below. In other words his death was not only due to his own negligence but also the negligence of appellants/Ops. It is to be noted from the enquiry that the Ops/appellants not denied Mr.Siddalingappa was not a consumer of Ops in way. We have to observe herein that incidents of this nature if raised before the forums and commissions have to be decided as early as possible keeping in mind the object of the consumer laws and any other beneficial laws, since it is also the duty of the State to see the welfare of the people, since OPs are officers of the subsidiary company constituted under statute of the State as such are duty bound to maintain high-tension electric lines in a proper way and they 8 Appeal No.593/2019 failed in their duties such incidents would occur often. This complaint was raised on 22.10.2018 was decided on 01.03.2019 and his legal representatives being wife and children were awarded with some amount of compensation and in our view forum below failed to appreciate the materials in right perception. It is true as OP.3 preferred this appeal in 2019 and in such a summary matter we are deciding in the middle of 2023 for variety of reasons including huge pendency of the cases in this State Commission and for not appointing required members on time even after CPA 2019 came in to force and rules framed thereon.
9. In the above such circumstances, for better doing justice, it is just and proper for us to follow the principles enunciated in the decision cited supra and apply to the case on hand to entertain the case under consumer laws. In other words not to drive parties to approach any other fora to seek compensation. In our view with decade on decade experience in the field no doubt the complainants as legal representatives are entitled for compensation either by this forum or else and deceased was also contributed his negligence equally. Thus, keeping in mind all such factual implications, we are of the view to award some amount of compensation to Complainant no.1 who is wife of 9 Appeal No.593/2019 deceased Mr.Siddalingappa, as she has lost her husband and had lost his company at the evening years.
10. In so far as decision reported in 2002 ACJ 526 (SC) in the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board vs. Shail Kumari and ors., is concerned as it was not decided on consumer law yet it would support our view to conclude that the incident was due to contributory negligence on the part of appellants and deceased. It is to be noted herein that the facts therein was "cyclist riding his cycle in the night was electrocuted when he came in contact with live electric wire lying on the road partially in undated with rain water - electricity board contended that electrocution was due to clandestine supply line was unattended and not taken any precautions towards supply line and that the line got unfastened from the book and fell on the road, stranger is liable - trial court assessed compensation at Rs.4,34,000/- but dismissed the suit on the ground that claimants failed to prove who was liable - High Court mulcted liability on the electricity board" and the Hon'ble Apex Court upheld the decision of Hon'ble High court. Thus, from this decision, since found was a decision arising out of suit and not on complaint raised under consumer law. Anyhow as enquiry reveals OP.3 having been failed to maintain high tension lines properly has to be held 10 Appeal No.593/2019 liable to pay compensation to the wife of deceased Mr.Siddalingappa and his children, died due to electrocution. Admittedly deceased was an agriculturist, aged about 60 years. In order to award special and general damages, we have to follow some guidelines to avoid speculation. In this regard it would be appropriate to follow the guide lines of the Hon'ble Apex Court the case between Sarla Verma & Ors vs Delhi Transport Corp.& Anr reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 SC and put Mr.Siddalingappa, in between the age group of 50 to 60 years, to which 9 multiplier would be applicable.
11. It has to be taken notice of the fact that Smt.Jayalakshmi w/o S.Balachandra was aged about 33 years. She was married daughter. Mr.Ashok s/o Siddalingappa was aged bout 31 years, is an earning major member of the family. Mr.S.Siddanna s/o Siddalingappa was aged about 21 years, is also major earning member of the family as such could not be inferred depended the earnings of deceased Mr.Siddalingappa. It is not in dispute that they are legal representatives of Mr.Siddalingappa, however could not be said depending his earnings to eke out their lively hood.
12. The incident was occurred on 07.01.2017 in the village called Hangal situated in Molakalmuru taluk of Chitradurga 11 Appeal No.593/2019 district, wherein he owned 32 acres, 1 gunta of land and due to his death the lands will be cultivable by his children but facts remain they have lost their head of the family who used to guide them in their day to day life and they have lost his supervisory guidance which cannot be compensated in terms of money but still we have to compensate in terms of money only which would be just and proper under law. He died while feeding sheep and goats, sufficient to hold that he was also earning for the family consisting of his wife and other members. In such view, for the purpose of awarding compensation, considering the contention of learned counsel for Appellant/OP and in consideration of date of death we are of the view to assess his earnings at Rs.350/- per day or Rs.10,500/- per month and 1,26,000/- p.a and by applying 9 multiplier his gross earnings would be at Rs.11,34,000/-, since Mr.Siddalingappa, had also contributed his negligence, it would be just and proper under law to reduce ½ compensation and thereby held gross earnings would be at Rs.5,67,000/-. Further considering the age and their life style had deceased been alive would have spent some amount towards his expensed which we have assessed at 1/5th and held Rs.4,53,600/- for the loss of dependency to Smt.Govindamma. She being wife was aged about 55 years at the time of complaint 12 Appeal No.593/2019 had lost her husband, as such an amount of Rs.50,000/- is assessed for the loss of consortium. Complainant nos.1 to 4 being wife and children have lost Mr.Siddalingappa, an elderly person, who has to guide them have to be held lost his estate for which an amount of Rs.50,000/- is assessed. Further as Complainant nos.2 to 4 have also lost their living father for which Rs.25,000/- each is assessed. Thus they are held entitle for compensation of Rs.6,53,000/- from OP.3/Appellant towards special and general damages.
13. In view of the above such conclusion, we proceed to allow the appeal and modified the award in the following terms:
OP.3-representing KPTCL is directed to pay Rs.6,53,000/- to the Complainants along with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of complaint till realisation and do pay Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
OP.3 is directed to deposit compensation awarded within 60 days before the Commission below and on such depositing Commission below is directed to release Rs.6,00,000/- in favour of 1st Complainant/ Smt.Govindamma w/o Siddalingappa and pay remaining amount equally in favour of Complainant nos.2 to 4 respectively with proper identification by their advocate. The complaint filed against OP.1 & 2/R5 & 6 herein is dismissed with no order as to cost.
13 Appeal No.593/2019
14. The amount in deposit is directed to be transferred to the District Commission for needful.
15. Notify copy of this Order to the District Commission and parties.
Lady Member Judicial Member *NS*