State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Superintending Engineer, Tsnpdcl, vs Gundaveni Lasum Bai on 25 March, 2026
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION:HYDERABAD
(ADDITIONAL BENCH)
FA. No.103/2021
AGAINST ORDERS
IN
CC. No.14/2017
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, ADILABAD
Between :-
1.The Superintending, Engineer, TSNPDCL, Adilabad, Dist, Adilbaad.
.....Appellant/Opposite party.
And Gundaveni Lasum Bai, W/o. Mallesh Age:- 59 Yrs, Occ:- House Wife, R/o. H.No.1-6-239, Shanthinagar Street, Adilabad.
...Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellant :M/s. Mir Aqueel Ali
Counsel for the Respondent : Sri. Peri Venkatramana
QUORUM: Hon'ble Sri K.Ranga Rao - Presiding Officer-
Member- (Judicial).
& Hon'ble Sri V.V.SESHUBABU- Member ( Judicial).
WEDNESDAY, THE 25th DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX ***** Order : (Per Hon'ble Sri K.Ranga Rao- Presiding Officer-
Member - (Judicial).
1. This appeal is filed by the Appellant/opposite party U/s.41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying this State Commission to set aside the impugned order dt.18.12.2019 passed in CC.No.14/2017 of the District Forum, Adilabad, and consequently to allow the appeal as prayed for. 2
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellant herein was opposite party and the Respondent were complainant in the CC. No. 14/2017 before the District Forum, Adilabad.
3.The brief averments of complaint are as follows:-
The complainant is mother of deceased Gundaveni Dattu, S/o.Mallesh, Age:26 yrs, Occ:Catlle Grazer, R/o. Shanthinagar, Adilabad. On 21.10.2015 at about noon hours complainant's son Gundaveni Dattu, while he was cattle grazing when reached S.P. Camp Officer, Adilabad, a wire supporting to the electric pole touched the deceased Gundaveni Dattu and he was electrocuted immediately he was shifted to RIMS. Adilabad where the doctors noticed that he was died. On a complaint the police of PS Adilabad 1 town registered a case in Cr.No.317/2015, U/Sec. 174 Cr.P.C. Complainant's son namely Gundaveni Dattu was hale and healthy, aged 26 yrs at the time of his death and used to earn Rs.12,000/- per month by cattle grazing and used to contributes his entire earnings on the welfare and benefits of complainant.
Due to untimely death of her son, the complainant suffered a lot physically, mentally and monetarily. The complainant's son electrocuted and died accidentally due to careless and negligent acts of officials of Opposite Party failed to maintain proper services due to which the Complainant's son electrocuted and died. The acts of Opposite Party are clearly shows that the service is very highly deficiency, negligently and carelessly.
4. Upon receipt of notice counter filed by Opposite Party. It is further submitted that no information has been received in the department of the Opposite Party with regard to the electrocution and death of the deceased. After receipt of the notice from the Hon'ble forum, this Opposite Party has instructed the concerned officials to inspect the spot and make enquiries and 3 report. The concerned Addl. Engineer, Adilabad South has visited the spot and made enquiries and reported that the deceased neither was electrocuted and nor he died due to electrocution. The complainant has set up the false case to claim compensation from the Opposite Parties. The allegation of the complainant is that the deceased while grazing cattle near the camp office of S.P. Adilabad came into contact with a live supporting wire of electric pole and that as a result of which the deceased was electrocuted and died are false and baseless and are created, as the deceased died not due to electrocution and as such the complainant is not entitled to claim compensation from the Opposite Parties. After receiving the notice from the Hon'ble forum and at the instructions of this Opposite Party, the Addl.Asst. Engineer (OP) TSNPDCL, Adilabad South had inspected the spot, made enquiries and sent a letter to the effect that no electrical incident took place as alleged by the complainant and the deceased did not die on account of electrocution. In view of the above the Opposite Party is not liable to pay any compensation or even ex-gratia to the complainant for the death of the deceased and the complaint is worth to be dismissed.
5. During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, to prove his case the Complainant filed their evidence affidavit as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. No documents are marked on behalf of opposite party.
6. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, allowed the complaint as follows.
In the result, the compliant is allowedin part and the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) along with interest @7% p.a. from the date of death till realization. No Compensation. Costs of the complaint being Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only), compliance within (4) weeks from the date of this order, failing which eh complainant is at liberty to proceed against the opposite party found under laws of CP. Act 1986.
4
7. Aggrieved by the above the order of the District Forum, Adilabad by the Appellant/opposite party preferred the present appeal FA. No.103/2021 with the following grounds of appeal:-
(i)The order of the District Forum is contrary to law weight of evidence and Probabilities of case and without appreciating the material borne by record just for the sake of sympathy allowed the complaint and unnecessary awarded the ex-gratia which is public money and the said order is illegal and not sustainable as such the same is liable to be set-aside.
8. With the above grounds the Appellant/opposite party prayed the State Commission to set aside the impugned order of the District Forum, Adilabad dt.18.12.2019 by made in CC 14/2017 and to allow the appeal as prayed for.
9. Though the counsel for appellant present he did not choose to advance the arguments and went on making requests for adjournments. Of course this commission liberally considered the same and granted adjournments but ultimately on 13.03.2026 this commission imposed conditional order as none appeared no representation on either side, to the affect that if the both parties fail to advance their arguments by next date without fail their arguments are treated as heard and the appeal will be reserved for orders. In view of the condition the appeal is reserved for orders.
10. The point that arises for consideration is:-
(i) Whether the impugned orderdt.18.12.2019 passed by the District Forum, Warangal in CC 14/2017,suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified, or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief?5
11. To decide the points for the consideration, we have carefully examined the whole material borne by the record particularly the averments of the compliant and evidence affidavit of wife of the deceased Mallesh who was alleged who have been died due to electrocution. It is noteworthy to mention here in the averments of complaint and also her evidence affidavit the complainant who is the wife of the deceased Mallesh did not specifically state that her husband the deceased Mallesh died only due to electrocution for the reason that her version shows that the Mallesh was a cattle grazer and as usually on 21.10.2015 at about Noon hours it took his cattle for grazing and when he reached the S.P. Camp officer, Adilabad, and while he was cutting a branch of a tree so as to provide the same to his cattle, it was on guess that he came in contact with an electric wire and die do the same or by the other reason. This version is equivocal to the affect that the complainant was not the eye witness to the incident and at the same time as per her version when another person by name Mr.Sahila Mahesh aged 17 years who is also a cattle grazer accompanied the deceased Mallesh on the said date. Of course whatever reasons it might be after the death of the deceased Mallesh a compliant was given to the Police of Adilabad one town police station and the said police registered the case u/s.174 CRPC. Since the criminal law was set into motion police tooked the investigation conducted inquest and got Postmortem Examination over the dead body of the deceased. In a very complaint that was submitted to the police under Ex.A1 FIR it was categorically stated by the complainant who is the wife of the deceased Mallesh to the effect "when the Deceased Mallesh was cutting a branch of a tree his hands might have touched the current wires or due to some other reason he might have died, the same was her suspension and therefore he requested the police to investigate into the death of the deceased Mallesh. In Ex.A2 6 inquest report, in Ex.A3 PME Report, it was not specifically stated that the deceased Mallesh died due to electrocution.
12. At this juncture it is relevant to mention here that the opposite party Electricity Department official the Superintend Engineer TSNPDCL Adilabad deputed the concerned Additional Engineering Adilabad South and visits the spot and makes enquires and submit report as to the truth of the incident. Accordingly as per the material borne by the record the said Additional Engineering Adilabad South visited the spot and made enquires and authenticatedly and conclusively gathered the information from the neighbors to the affect that the deceased did not died due to electrocution. The allegation that the deceased died due to electrocution was a cooked up story prepared only to get ex-gratia illegally.
13. When the fact situation is above we don't assimilate the findings given by the District Commission Adilabad, to the effect as if the deceased Mallesh died due to electrocution and for the same without any ioata of evidence awarded ex-gratia of 2lakhs with interest @ 7% P.A. and also costs of Rs.2,000/- and fixed the time limit to comply the same with four weeks to the opposite parties but the same is fervors and not based on any evidence as such the said award is liable to be set aside without any dithering.
14. At this juncture we express our deprecation to the District Commission Adilabad not to pass such type orders mechanically without appreciating the material borne by the record i.e. pleadings and evidence. We hope that the District Commission Adilabad will follow our advice. 7
In view of the above discussion based on the facts and evidence we are of the considered view that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order of the District Commission dt.18.12.2019 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly the appeal is allowed and the order of the District Commission is set aside.
15. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the District Commission- Adilabad dt.18.12.2019 in CC.14/2017 is liable to be set aside.
There is no order as to costs.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open commission on 25.03.2026.
SD/- SD/-
------- -------------------------------------------------------
Presiding officer MEMBER(J) MEMBER(J)
Dated :25.03.2026.
UK