State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chairman-Cum-Managing Director ... vs Ettam Srikanth S/O.Lingam R/O.Donelly ... on 16 February, 2012
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD. FA.No.921/2010 against CC.No.83/2009 District Forum, ADILABAD Between 1.
The Chairman-cum-Managing Director NPDCL of A.P. Near Petrol Pump, Warangal Dist.Warangal.
2. The Chief Engineer NPDCL, Khilla Road, Dit.Nizamabad.
3. The Superitending Engineer, NPDCL, Adilabad.
4. The Divisional Engineer, NPDCL., Nirmal, Dist.
Adilabad. Appellants/ Opp.parties.
And
1. Ettam Srikanth S/o.Lingam Age 10 years, Occ:Student,
2. Ettam Rajnikanth S/o.Lingam, Age 8 years, Occ:Student.
Both the complainants are minors, rep.
Through their next friend K.Sucharitha W/o.Mallesh, age 35 years, Occ:Household, R/o.Donelly Village, Mandal Dilwarpur, Dist.Adilabad (Maternal aunty of the complainants) ..Respondents/ Complainants.
Counsel for the Appellants : M/s.O.Manohar Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : Mr.Mohd.Aleemuddin.
QUORUM:
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT, AND SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE MEMBER, THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TWELVE Oral Order (Per Honble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President) *** The opposite parties, Electricity Corporation, filed this appeal against the order of the District Forum granting compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on the death of the deceased by electrocution.
The case of the complainants 1 and 2 who are minor children of deceased E.Laxmi was that their mother owns Ac.1.14 guntas of land and that on 17-9-2008 when she went to the fields for ploughing at about 11.30 a.m. she was electrocuted when a live 100 K.V. electric wire fell on the fencing which came into contact with and died on the spot.
On a report, the Police registered a case in Crime No.50/2008 U/s.174 Cr.P.C. conducted inquest followed by post mortem. The complainants alleged that their mother was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per annum from agriculture, due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party department, 100 K.V. live electric wire fell due to which she was electrocuted. They got issued a legal notice dated 25-12-20008 and there was no response and therefore, filed the complaint seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 18% p.a., compensation and costs.
The opposite parties i.e. electricity corporation, resisted the case. It alleged that on 17-9-2008 there was heavy gale and wind, and the L.T. outgoing dropper snapped and fallen on the fencing and the deceased walked carelessly and came into contact with the live electric wire and was electrocuted and died. She died on account of her own negligence. The snapping of dropper was due to heavy gale and wind which is beyond their control. They submitted that there was no negligence on their part and whenever any defect in the lines or snapping of wires was noticed or reported, the same was attended immediately. They admitted that on the death of the deceased, the police registered a case in Crime No.50/08 U/s.174 Cr.P.C., No departmental official has been implicated in the said case as none of them is responsible for the death of the deceased and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant filed Exs.A1 to A9 while the opposite party filed the affidavit evidence of opposite party No.4 and Ex.B1, preliminary report of the Asst. Divisional Engineer (Electrical).
The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record, opined that the wire snapped due to negligence of electricity department and considered the income and age of the deceased and awarded Rs.3,00,000/- to be paid by the appellant.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that there was no negligence on its part, at any rate the compensation awarded was high and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by any mis-appreciation of fact or law in that regard?
It is an undisputed fact that on 17-9-2008, the mother of the complainants, E.Laxmi, while going to her fields a 100 K.V. heavy electric wire fell on the fencing and the deceased came into contact with the same and died. A curious contention was taken that the deceased has come into contact with the live wire while walking carelessly. She has nothing to do with either gale or wind or snapping of live wire. She could not have foreseen it. When the appellant themselves admit that there was heavy gale and wind and L.T. outgoing dropper snapped and fallen on the fencing, we do not see how the deceased could be attributed any negligence. The fact that the complainant was the owner of the land is evidence by Pahani, Ex.A9. In fact the Assistant Divisional Engineer immediately after informing about the death of the deceased inspected and found that due to snapping of the electric wire and falling on the fencing, the deceased came into contact with the same and died. There was also a mention that he instructed the staff to remove the fencing which is dangerous to human beings and animals. The dropper was changed with new conductor. There is exfacie negligence on their part. The Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar reported in 2002 (2) ALD 4 (SC) taking cognizance of these cases of electrocution opined::
It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular was statutorily conferred on the Board.
If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into if the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.
It was further observed:
Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risk exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability case on such person is known, in law, as strict liability.
It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e., the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable hard could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.
The decision in (2009) C.J.261 (NC) reported in C.G.M. P & O NPDCL AND OTHERS v. KOPPU DUDDARAJAM AND ANOTHER of the National Commission is also on similar lines. The deceased was aged 30 years and admittedly an agriculturist cultivating Ac.1.14 guntas. Considering the age multiplier 17 can be taken. Equally considering her income, we are of the opinion that the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- could not be said to be high. It is modest and reasonable. We do not see any reasons to interfere with the order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
The amount deposited by the appellant be transmitted to the District Forum in order to enable the complainants to withdraw the same.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM 16-2-2012