State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Superintending Engineer Operation ... vs Vemula Srinivas Rao, S/O.Late Krishna ... on 26 April, 2013
BEFORE THE A
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.670/2012 against C.C.No.122/2011 District
Forum, VIZIANAGARAM
Between
1.
The Superintending Engineer
Operation, APEPDCL.,
Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram.
2.
The Divisional Engineer, APEPDCL(operation)
Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram District.
3.
The Asst.Divisonal Engineer, (Operation)
APEPDCL, Parvathipuram, Vizianagaram Dist., Appellants/
opposite parties
And
1.
Vemula Srinivas Rao, S/o.late Krishna
Rao, aged 38 years, R/o.Kanchara Veedhi
Door No.2-245, Parvathipuram Town,
Vizianagaram District.
2.
Smt. Vemala Jaya W/o.Srinivasa Rao,
Hindu, aged 30 years, R/o.Kanchara Veedhi
Dr.No.2-245, Parvathipuram Town,
Vizianagaram District. Respondents/
Complainants.
Counsel
for the Appellants :
M/s Jyothi Eswar Gogineni
Counsel for the Respondents: served
QUORUM: SMT.M.SHREESHA, HONBLE
Incharge President
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Honble Incharge President) *** Aggrieved by the order of C.C.No.122/2011 on the file of District Forum, Vizianagaram, the opposite parties preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant No.1 is the father and complainant No.2 is the mother of the deceased Vemula Madhavi who died due to electrocution on 04-2-2010. It is their case that on 02-2-2010 their daughter got electrical shock due to short circuit of the entire house and the entire body was completely burnt due to the said short circuit and the house was also damaged. The complainants submitted that the above accident occurred only due to electrical short circuit and excess supply of electricity to their house was from the nearest transformer due to gross negligence of the opposite parties.
The Police registered a case in Crime No.13/2011 U/s.174 Cr.P.C. and after the accident, post-mortem was conducted and the dead body was handed over to the family members of the deceased. The complainant submitted that their deceased daughter was aged 13 years and she discontinued her studies due to financial crises but helping her parents and was hale and healthy. It is the case of the complainants that the opposite parties have not supervised the high voltage/excess electricity supplied to the house on the date of the accident which shows gross negligence. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation due to death of Vemula Madhavi together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of accident till realization together with damages and costs.
Opposite party No.3 filed counter which was adopted by opposite parties 1 and 2 resisting the complaint. Opposite parties submit that as per the inspection and enquiry conducted by them, the accident might have occurred due to electrical shock while operating the TV switch in the plug box and as the deceased switched on the TV and when there was no display in the TV, she operated the TV plug in the box which was situated near by the side of the TV, the supply feeding is from SS-28 of 160 KVA near municipal office to the house of the deceased along with other 450 services but there was no complaint from any other consumer regarding high voltage. Hence there is no possibility of high voltage exclusively to the house of the complainant and the short circuit may be due to grounding the supply through the body of the deceased which she came into contact with the supply while operating TV plug. Opposite parties further contended that they have no responsibility for internal wiring and mishandling of the electric domestic appliances and submit that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and not due to their negligence. They further contended that the post mortem report has not been submitted by the complainants along with other documents and the same have been suppressed deliberately and submitted that the documents clearly established that there was no negligence on their part and hence they are not liable to pay any compensation.
Opposite parties allege that the complainants are not consumers and the above complaint is not a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and hence the Honble Forum has no jurisdiction. They also contended that the complainants did not send any notice to the electrical inspector as contemplated under the Electricity Act since there are no merits in their complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A7 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,37,000/- to the complainants together with costs of Rs.3,000/- and directed to pay the said amount within two months failing which awarded interest at 9% p.a. from the date of death till realization.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred this appeal.
The facts not in dispute are that the first complainant is the father and the second complainant is the mother of the deceased, Vemula Madhavi, aged 13 years and died of electrocution on 04-2-2011. Ex.A1 is the FIR dated 04-2-2011 which shows that the deceased was residing in her house at Kanchera Veedhi and due to the short circuit of the entire house, her body was completely burnt. It is the case of the complainants that it is only because of the short circuit and excess supply of electricity to her house from the nearest transformer that this electrical accident had occurred resulting in the death of their daughter, V.Madhavi.
It is the case of the appellants/opposite parties that the deceased received electrical shock through internal wiring to their house while she plugged on the television. As per clauses 5.4, 5.6 and 5.7 of the general terms and conditions of supply, the consumer shall take responsibility of the internal wiring. From the same feeder, the department had given supply to other shops and houses but there was no complaint. The learned counsel for appellants/opposite parties contended that the death was due to mishandling of the electrical appliances and sub standard quality of internal wiring and that there is no negligence nor high voltage supply by the opposite parties.
Exs.A2 and A3 which are the inquest report and death certificates establish that the death occurred on 04-2-2011 and that it is by electrocution. The District Forum had observed that the entire record/data regarding high voltage will be available with the officials only and hence it is their responsibility to maintain the lines properly and supervise the power supply.
A brief perusal of the record also shows that the opposite parties did not conduct any investigation or file the investigation report with respect to short circuit of electricity or with respect to sub standard internal wiring of the complainants house which they are alleging. There is no documentary evidence filed by the appellants in support of their contention that the complainants house did not have good quality internal wiring and only that led to the death of V.Madhavi. The burden of proof shifts to the appellants that the poor quality of the internal wiring led to the death and there is no single document filed by the appellants either before the Forum or this Commission in support of their case. In support of their case, the appellants relied on the decision of National Commission reported in IV (2011) CPJ 530 (NC) in SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER (ELEC.) MESCOM & ANR. V. KRISHNA POOJARY & ANR. in which the National Commission held that for death by mistake or short circuit occurring beyond metering point, no negligence can be attributed to department as the complainant was unlawfully availing its service and accident occurred due to flow of electricity to cable socket of TV which was rendered faulty due to heavy lightening and thunder. He further relied on a decision reported in (2005) 6 SCC 156 between SDO GRID CORPORATION OF ORISSA LTD., AND OTHERS v. TIMUDU ORAM wherein it was held that if death occurs due to electric shocks from snapped wires and for exercise of power under Art. 226, actions in tort and negligence are first required to be established and mere fact that the claimants had suffered loss is not sufficient.
We rely on the decision of M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar reported in 2002 (2) ALD 4 (SC) and in REVISION PETITION NO. 3457 OF 2009 in Divisional Engineer (Operations) and another v. Smt. Bujamma and others wherein it was held that the Petitioners are service providers, to whom deceased had paid for sanction and installation of the electricity connection including wiring, and it was, therefore, their responsibility to ensure that it was properly maintained and kept in a good condition so that it does not snap.
Keeping in view the aforementioned judgements, we do not see any reason to interfere with the well considered order of the District Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-INCHARGE PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.26-4-2013.