State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nenavath Mangli W/O. Takriya Naik Aged ... vs 1. The Assistant Executive Engineer, ... on 27 March, 2018
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. FA/1260/2013 ( Date of Filing : 05 Aug 2013 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 17/04/2013 in Case No. CC/85/2012 of District Mahbubnagar) 1. Nenavath Mangli W/o. Takriya Naik Aged about 70 Years, Occ: House hold, R/o. H.No.2-3, Regadigadda Thanda, Venkatapur Village, Mahabubnagar Mandal & District. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. 1. The Assistant Executive Engineer, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Mahabubnagar. 2. 2. The Superintending Engineer/Operation,Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Mahabubnagar. 3. 3. The Managing Director, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd., Corporate Office, H.No.6-1-50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Appellant: For the Respondent: Dated : 27 Mar 2018 Final Order / Judgement STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA : At HYDERABAD FA 1260 of 2013 AGAINST CC No. 85 of 2012, DISTRICT FORUM ATMAHABUBNAGAR Between : Nenavath Mangli, W/o Takriya Naik Aged about 70 years, Occ : Household R/o H.No.2-3, Regadigadda Thanda, Venkatapur Village Mahabubnagar Mandal and District .. Appellant/complainant And The Assistant Executive Engineer Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd Mahabubnagar. The Superintending Engineer/Operation, Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd Mahabubnagar. The Managing Director Central Power Distribution Company of A.P. Ltd Corporate office, H.No. 6-1-50, Mint Compound, Mahabubnagar. .. Respondents/opposite parties Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. K. Sudershan Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. P. Ganeswara Rao for R1 to R3 Coram : Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla ... President And Sri Patil Vithal Rao ... Member
Tuesday, the Twenty Seventh Day of March Two Thousand Eighteen Oral order : ( per Hon' ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon'ble President ) ***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 17.04.2013 made in CC 85 of 2012 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM, Mahabubnagar.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that her son, by name, N. Gopal, who was working as a Government Teacher, on 08.03.2012 at about 8.30 pm, when he was keeping electrical plug in the switch board of electricity to start T.V. at his house having S.C. No. 231, he met electrocution and received burn injuries over his stomach. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Mahabubangar where the medical officer declared that he died. The Rural police of Mahabubnagar registered it in Cr No. 78of 2012 U/s. 174 Cr. P.C. The incident had occurred due to electrical fluctuations and earth wire fails at the transformer. At the time of incident, her son was hale and healthy and earning @ Rs.20,000/- per month as Government teacher and contributing to his family. The opposite parties are having responsibility to conduct periodical checks on electrical poles and wires to avoid accidents, but, the opposite parties failed to conduct the same, hence her son died which amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation with interest for death of her son, Rs.50,000/-towards mental agony and costs of Rs.20,000/-.
4). The opposite party no. 1 opposed the above complaint by way of written version, which was adopted by opposite parties 2 and 3, contending that they are not responsible for internal connections, damages etc., to the house of a consumer and in fact it is the duty and responsibility of the consumer to see that the internal connections to the house or premises are intact before using them and hence they are not at all responsible for the death of the deceased. For non-payment of electricity bills, the service connection bearing No. 231 of her son was disconnected in the month of December, 2007, hence the complainant and her son are not consumers. There are no fluctuations on the day of incident. They have not received complaints from any consumer. If really, any earth wire fails at the transformer, the power supply will not be there from the transformer and the domestic houses will not get any power supply. There is no deficiency in service on their part. The complaint is not maintainable and hence it is liable to be dismissed.
5) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove her case, the complainant filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A4 and the opposite parties filed evidence affidavit and no documents were marked.
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint.
7) Dis-satisfied with the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8). Both parties have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the appeal grounds, rebuttal thereof and heard them.
09) The points that arise for consideration are, (i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum 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 ? 10). Point No. 1 :
There is no dispute that the son of the appellant/complainant, by name, N. Gopal was having S.C.No. 231 to his house and he died due to burn injuries on account of electrocution while he was keeping the V Plug in the switch board.
11). The contention of the appellant/complainant is that due to voltage fluctuations in the current since misplacement of earth wire at the transformer, the incident had occurred, which, was rebutted by the respondents Board contending that since the deceased did not pay electricity bills regularly and hence his service connection was disconnected in the month of December, 2007 and hence the appellant/complainant and her son are not consumers and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
12). The District Forum observed that on the day of incident, there was no service connection to SC No. 231 provided by the respondents/opposite parties since it was disconnected in the month of December, 2007 itself for non-payment of arrears and hence the complainant and her son do not come within the meaning of consumer and for that reason the complaint is not maintainable and hence dismissed the complaint.
13). Counsel for the appellant argued that the District Forum failed to see that either as on the date of accident or subsequently also there was no disconnection of service and the complainant has been using the same without any disconnection uninterruptedly and the Rural Police of Mahabubnagar also registered the Crime No. 78 of 2012 U/s.174 of Cr. P.C and the respondents/ opposite parties are collecting bills even as on today also from the appellant/complainant. But, in support of her contention, the appellant/complainant did not produce any receipts showing that the consumption charges of S. C. No. 231 were paid on the day of incident to prove that she and her son are consumers even at the stage of appeal also. Since the respondents' Board categorically stating that the SC. No. 231 was disconnected in the month of December, 2007 itself due to non-payment of arrears and when the incident happened on 08.03.2012, it is for the appellant/complainant to prove that the averments of the respondents' board are wrong. But as per Ex.A4, Report of Post Mortem Examination, dated 09.03.2012, her son died due to Cardio-respiratory failure due to electric shock. No doubt, he died due to electric shock. It is for the appellant to prove by any cogent evidence rebutting that her son was not using the electricity illegally. In the circumstances , we have no option except to accept the impugned order of the District Forum.
14). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, this Commission is of the view that since the appellant/complainant failed to prove that electricity consumption charges were paid during the period of the incident and that the appellant and her son are consumers, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
15). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 17.04.2013 in CC 85 of 2012 on the file of the District Forum at Mahabubnagar. No order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 27.03.2018. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER