State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.A.E.Apnpdcl vs 1.Gurijala Lakshmi on 31 August, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Telangana First Appeal No. FA/108/2014 (Arisen out of Order Dated 25/03/2013 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/119/2010 of District Karimnagar) 1. 1.A.E.APNPDCL Peddapalli, Rural West, Peddapalli Proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District 2. 2.The S.E.APNPDCL, Karimnagar, Near Court, Karimnagar 3. 3.Chairman and M.d., APNPDCL, Chaitanyapuri 1.1.478, Opp. RTC Petrol Bunk, Hanumankonda, District Warangal ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. 1.Gurijala Lakshmi Wife of Gurijala Bhoomaiah, Aged 32 Years, Occ Household Residents of Bramhanapalli Village of Peddapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District 2. 2.Gurijala Anil Son of Late Gurijala Bhoomaiah, Aged 15 Years, Occ Student, Residents of Bramhanapalli Village of Peddapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District 3. 3.Gurijala Akhil Son of Late Gurijala Bhoomaiah, Aged 13 Years, Occ Student, Residents of Bramhanapalli Village of Peddapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District 4. 4.Gurijala Venkatesham Son of Mallaiah, Aged 55 Years, Occ Agrl Residents of Bramhanapalli Village of Peddapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District 5. 5.Gurijala Lasmavva Lasmakka Wife of Venkatesham Age 52 Years, Residents of Bramhanapalli Village of Peddapalli Mandal, Karimnagar District ...........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 : 31 Aug 2017 Final Order / Judgement BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD. FA No. 694 OF 2013 AGAINST CC No.119 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, KARIMNAGAR Between : Gurijala Laxmi W/o. Guriala Bhumaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Household, Gurijala Anil S/o. Guriala Bhumaiah Aged about 18 years, Occ: Student. Gurijala Akhil, S/o. Guriala Bhumaiah Aged about 16 years, Occ: Student, Gurijala Venkatesham S/o. Mallaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Agriculture Gurijala Lasmavva @ Lasmakka W/o. Venkatesham, Aged about 55 years. All are R/o. Brahmanapalli Village, Peddapalli Manda, Karimnagar District. ....Appellants / Complainants AND The A.E., APNPDCL, Peddapalli, Rural West, Peddapalli Proper & Mandal, Karimnagar District. The S.E., APNPDCL, Karimnagar , near Court, Karimnagar. The Chairman and M.D., APNPDCL, Chaitanyapuri, # 1-1-4/8, Opp: RTC Petro Bunk, Hanmakonda, District Warangal. ....Respondents / Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellants / Complainants : Sri V.Gouri Sankara Rao Counsel for the Respondents / Opposite Parties : Sri Zakir Ali Danish & A.Jaya Raju FA No. 108 OF 2014 AGAINST CC No.119 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, KARIMNAGAR Between : The A.E.,APNPDCL, Peddapalli, Rural West, Peddapalli Proper & Mandal, Karimnagar District. The S.E.,APNPDCL, Karimnagar , near Court, Karimnagar. The Chairman and M.D.,APNPDCL, Chaitanyapuri, # 1-1-4/8, Opp: RTC Petro Bunk, Hanmakonda, District Warangal. ....Appellants / Opposite Parties AND Gurijala Laxmi W/o. Guriala Bhumaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ: Household, Gurijala Anil S/o. Guriala Bhumaiah Aged about 18 years, Occ: Student. Gurijala Akhil, S/o. Guriala Bhumaiah Aged about 16 years, Occ: Student, Gurijala Venkatesham S/o. Mallaiah, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Agriculture Gurijala Lasmavva @ Lasmakka W/o. Venkatesham, Aged about 55 years. All are R/o. Brahmanapalli Village, Peddapalli Manda, Karimnagar District. ....Respondents / Complainants Counsel for the Appellants / Opposite Parties : Sri P.Vinod Kumar & A.Jaya Raju Counsel for the Respondents / Complainants: SriV. Gouri Sankara Rao Hon'ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla ... President & Sri Patil Vithal Rao ... Member
, Thursday the Thirty First day of August Two thousand Seventeen Oral Order : (Per Hon'ble Sri. Patil Vithal Rao, Member).
*** These two appeals arise out of the order dated 25.03.2013 passed by the District Consumer Forum [for brevity, 'the District Forum'] Karimnagar in C.C. No. 119/2010 directing the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, to pay to the Complainants a sum of Rs.1,75,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing of the complaint till realization with costs of Rs.1,000/- by granting one month time for due compliance. The Appeal in E.A no.694/2013 has been filed by the Complainants seeking enhancement of the compensation to Rs.6,00,000/- and the Appeal in F.A.no.108/2014 has been filed by the Opposite Parties to set aside the impugned order. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to hereinafter as arrayed in the complaint.
The Complainant no.1 is the wife of one late Gurijala Bhumaiah, the Complainants nos. 2& 3 are her sons and the Complainants Nos.4 & 5 are her parents in law.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 12.06.2010 at about 12.00 noon while the husband of the Complainant no.1, late Gurijala Bhumaiah was cultivating his land with a jumbo plough, he came in contact with a live electric high tension wire and sustained severe electric shock and that as such he was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital, Peddapally in an Ambulance, but unfortunately he succumbed to the burn injuries. As per the Complainants, the said incident had occurred due to hanging of live electric wires at a low level of 8 feet from the ground. Therefore, by attributing negligence and dereliction of duties on the part of the Opposite Parties, in maintaining the live electric wires at a proper height, they sought, a compensation against them to the tune of Rs.6,00,000/-with interest @ 18% p.a., on the premise that on account of untimely death of the deceased, they lost dependency and love and affection apart from monitory loss.
The Opposite Party nos.1& 2 have resisted the claim by way of filing a written version on the grounds, in brief, that infact the height of the live electric wires was being maintained at 12 to 16 feet from the ground as per rule by their Department but at the time of incident the deceased parked his bullock cart exactly below the said wires and attempted to keep an iron plough on it and that in the process it came in contact with the live electric wires resulting in an electrocution. Thus, as per the Opposite Party nos.1& 2, the incident had occurred an account of negligence of the deceased himself. Further, the electrocution had taken place not with a service wire to the field of the deceased and that as such he was not a 'consumer' of their department, within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Opposite Party nos.1& 2 have also alleged that the Complainants have given age of the deceased as 35 years at the time of the incident incorrectly, though he was actually aged 38 years, with an intention to claim exorbitant compensation. For these reasons they sought dismissal of the complaint.
The Opposite Party no.3 in the case remained exparte.
The Complainant no.1, on her behalf and on behalf other Complainants, has filed her evidence affidavit apart from two affidavits of neighboring land owners and marked Exs.A1 to Exs.A14 to substantiate the claim. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
After due enquiry into the matter and hearing the parties, the District Forum passed the order, noted in Para no.1 supra, which is now impugned in the preset Appeals.
The contention of the Appellants / Complainants in F.A.no.694/2013, in brief, is that the District Forum has failed to appreciate that the annual income of the deceased was Rs.1,20,000/- from his wet land admeasuring Ac.3-39 guntas, and that he was aged only 35 years at the time of the incident and that on account of his accidental death, which was the result of negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties, the Complainants lost dependency, love and affection and financial loss. Thus, as per the Complainants, the impugned is contrary to law and weight of evidence and that as such liable to be modified by awarding compensation, as prayed for by them in the complaint.
The Appeal in F.A.no.108/2014, which has been preferred by all the Opposite Parties, is on the grounds, interalia, that soon after the incident the ADE concerned visited the accident spot and filed his report as per which, the deceased himself acted negligently resulting in his death. Infact, the Low Tension live wires were at a standard height of 12 to 16 feet, from the ground but, as per the Opposite Parties, without appreciating all these facts the District Forum has erred in allowing the complaint though it needed a detailed trial by way of a civil suit. Thus, the order was passed without jurisdiction and with material irregularity and illegality, and as such they sought to set aside the same.
Perused the material evidence placed on record and the written arguments of the parties. Heard both the learned counsel.
Now the point for consideration is that:
whether the impugned order is erroneous and illegal, both on facts and under law, and that as such liable to be set aside?
Point : It is not in dispute that late Gurijala Bhumaiah died of electrocution on 12.06.2010 leaving the Complainants as his legal heirs. The only dispute is with regard to the cause of it. As per the Complainants, while the deceased was ploughing his agricultural land with a Jumbo Jones, it come in contact with live electric wires, which were hanging low at a height of only 8 feet from the ground, resulting in the electrocution. Per contra, the Opposite Parties have contended that as per the enquiry report submitted by the ADE of the Department, soon after the incident, the LT live wires were at normal height of 12 to 16 feet from the ground but the deceased attempted to keep his plough in a bullock cart by parking it just below the said wires negligently resulting in the incident. In this regard it is to be noted that, despite giving of reasonable opportunity by the District Forum, the Opposite Party nos.1& 2, who were the only contesting parties to the case, did not submit a copy of said enquiry report of the ADE. Further, they did not even adduce any oral evidence to refute the claim in question. On the other hand the Complainants have filed 3rd party affidavits of one Gandla Ravi and Kotta Rajaiah, who are adjacent land owners of the land of the deceased. They have specifically stated in their affidavits that they witnessed the incident and that at that time the height of the live wires was only 8 feet from the ground. Thus they have duly substantiated the material contention of the Complainant no.1, as averred by her in her evidence affidavit.
The Complainants have also filed copies of Sale Deed and Pattedar Passbook under Exs. A6 and Ex.A7 respectively to show that the deceased was owner and possessor of the land where the incident took place.
After incident, basing on the Complaint of the Complainant no.1, the SHO. of Basanthnagar P.S., of Karimnagar District, registered the case in Crime no.58/2010 under Section-174 Cr.P.C., and investigated into. Ex.A14 is a copy of his Investigation Report/Final Report submitted to the Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Peddapalli. As per this document, the electric live wires were at a low level resulting in the iron plough coming in contact with the same while the deceased was carrying it on his shoulder after ploughing the land. It is also to be noted that the Complainants have filed a Certificate under Ex.A8 issued by the Opposite Party no.1. This document is dated 29.06.2010 and it certifies that the deceased met with an accidental death on 12.06.2010 by getting touched to Low Tension Electric Wires. Even this document is silent about the actual height of the said live wires at the time of the incident and that there is no whisper in it about the alleged enquiry conducted by the ADE. Thus, these two material pieces of evidence under Exs.A8 and Ex.A14 support the case of the Complainants.
As per the Rules- 46,50 & 91 of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 under the Electricity Act, 1910, the electricity department has to conduct periodical checks on electrical installations and take adequate precautions to ensure that no live parts are so exposed as to cause any danger. Further, they shall take safety measures by providing with a device approved by the Electrical Inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it breaks. In the present case, as per the evidence placed on record, the Low Tension Live Wires were hanging low at mere 18 feet from the ground at the relevant time. This aspect amply establishes dereliction of duty on the part of the Department in maintaining the live wires properly to avoid any risk to the human being. Therefore, in the given set up facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that this negligent act on the part of the Opposite Parties certainly amounts to deficiency in service. It is also to be noted that, the Complainants have filed a copy of Power Consumption Bill under Ex.A5 to show that the deceased was using power to his land with a service connection on the name of his father. Thus, he was a 'consumer' within the meaning of the Act, 1986. Therefore, the claim, as set up by the Complainants, is certainly maintainable. Even otherwise by invoking the legal fiction of "strict liability" as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar and Others, (2002) 1 Supreme 98, the Complainants are entitled for compensation. This decision was also relied on by this Commission in awarding compensation to the claimants in, Superintending Engineer, ATRASCO, Karimnagar And another Vs. J.Rajeswari And Others, in F.A.no.1630/2007, by the order dated 08.02.2010. In the said case also the live wires were hanging at a height of 7 feet from the ground in an agricultural field causing death of one Mr. J.Sammaiah on account of electrocution when he was lifting an iron pipe. Thus, these two decisions fortify the view taken by us.
Now coming to the aspect of quantum of compensation to be awarded, it is to be noted that the Complainants have given age of the deceased as 35 years, with annual income of Rs.1,20,000/- at the time of the incident. But, they did not file any proof for the same. On the other hand the PME report under Ex.A2 shows that the deceased was aged 38 years at the relevant time. It is now well settled proposition of law that in awarding compensation in such cases of accidental deaths, the courts can invoke the multiplier formula under Second Schedule as per Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. In this regard it is to be seen that the Forum below has taken notional annual income of the deceased only at Rs.14,500/- though as per the revenue record under Exs.A6 & Ex.A7, referred supra, he was having Ac.3-39 guntas of wet land and was personally working as an agriculturist till his death. The Complainants have given his annual income as Rs.1,20,000/-. But having regard to the extent of the land and age of the deceased, his annual income can conveniently be taken at Rs.30,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd amount of Rs.10,000/- there from towards his personal expenses, the balance comes to Rs.20,000/- towards loss of dependency to the Complainants. Inview of age of deceased the applicable multiplier will be 16 and by applying the same the amount of compensation comes to Rs.3,20,000/-. Further, the Complainants are also entitled for funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of love and affection. The said amount is reasonably settled at Rs.30,000/- making the total compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- to mee the ends of justice and equity.
It is to be noted that at the time of filing of the complaint the Complainant nos.2 & 3 were minors and by this time, evidently, they must have attained age of majority. Therefore, we hold that all the Complainants are equally entitled for the above compensation amount.
We have given careful consideration to the impugned order. The learned District Forum has considered all the material evidence placed on record in a right perspective except the guess work in arriving at the annual income of the deceased. Therefore, to the said extent the impugned order, in our opinion, needs modification in assessing the quantum of compensation.
In view of the forgone discussion, the Appeal in F.A.no.108/2014 is liable to be dismissed and consequently the Appeal in F.A.no.694/2013 is fit to be allowed by modifying the impugned order.
The point is answered accordingly.
In the result, the Appeal in F.A.no.108/2014 is dismissed and F.A.no.694/2013 is partly allowed by modifying the impugned order directing the Opposite Parties, jointly and severally, to pay to the Complainants, the compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance one month.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dt.31 .08.2017 [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. N. RAO NALLA] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Sri. PATIL VITHAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER