State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ch.Bhimeswara Swamy And Others Khammam vs Ap Tranco And Others Khammam on 31 March, 2009
BEFORE THE A BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: ADDL.BENCH AT HYDERABAD. F.A.No. 466 OF 2006 AGAINST C.D.NO.87 OF 2005 DISTRICT FORUM, KHAMMAM. Between: 1. Ch.Bhimeswara Swamy S/o Satyanarayana Aged about 43 years, Senior Manager, Sponge Iron India Limited, Paloncha 2. Ch.Meghana D/o Bhimeswara Swamy aged about 14 years, Student 3. Ch.L.N.Suryakanth S/o Bhimeswara Swamy Aged about 9 years, Student, All are R/o B-2, Pragathinagar, SIIL Campus-507 154, Paloncha-Khammam District (Appellants No.2 & 3 are being minors rep. by their father and natural guardian appellant no.1 herein) Appellants/complainants A N D 1. The Chairman & Managing Director AP TRANSCO, Vidyuth Souda, Hyderabad 2. The Superintendent Engineer (Operations) Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd., (AP TRANSCO), Khammam, Khammam Dist. 3. The Divisional Engineer (Operations) Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd., (APTRANSCO) Bhadrachalam, Khammam District 4. The Divisional Engineer (Transmissions) Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd., (APTRANSCO) Paloncha, Khammam District 5. The Assistant Divisional Eningeer (Operations) Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APTRANSCO) Paloncha, Khammam District 6. The Assistant Enigneer(Town) Northern Power Distribution Company Ltd. (APTRANSCO) Paloncha, Khammam District Respondents/opposite parties Counsel for the Appellants: Sri A.Nagendra Rao Counsel for the Respondents: Sri O.Manohar Reddy QUORUM: SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
& SRI R.LAXMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER TUESDAY THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND NINE Oral Order ( As per Sri R.Laxminarsimha Rao, Member) *** This appeal is filed by the complainants against the order of dismissal of their complaint by the District Forum Khammam in C.D.No.87 of 2005.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the wife of the appellant no.1 died on 26.01.2004 due to electrocution at SIIL campus Paloncha and a case was registered in Crime No.19 of 2004 u/s 174 of Cr.P.C. by Town Police Station Paloncha against the respondents for their negligence in maintaining high power transmission wires in the vicinity of residential colonies. The deceased was a housewife and a graduate. The deceased died while returning home after purchasing vegetables when a high power transmission wire got cut and fell on her in the residential area at Paloncha. Postmortem examination was conducted on the body of the deceased and the police charge sheeted the accused. The appellants suffered mental agony, loss of love and affection, family life and loss of consortium. The appellants got issued legal notice on 4.3.2004 demanding the respondents to pay Rs.8 lakhs towards compensation and the respondents gave reply on 5.5.2004 stating that the high tension lines were erected 25 years ago and the same were being regularly checked and maintained by them.
The respondents filed counter denying the material averments of the complaint. It is stated that the high tension lines were erected 25 years ago and those lines were regularly checked and maintained by them. The live wire was cut due to heavy unforeseen gale and heavy storm which was beyond the control of the respondents. There was a passage to the residential houses through Managers main gate but through the place of accident. Further it is stated that a civil court only competent to try the case as it requires examination witnesses and framing of issues.
Basing on the evidence adduced, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order the complainants preferred this appeal.
The point for consideration is whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and if so, to what relief the appellants are entitled to?
The basic facts not in dispute and borne by the documents, FIR, Inquest Report and report of Postmortem examination are that on 26.1.2004 the wife of the appellant no.1 Mrs.Chelliboina Durgamba was returning her home after purchasing vegetables in the market and when she reached manager quarter a 11 km live wire got cut and fell on her resulting her instant death. It is also not in dispute the deceased was aged about 39 years and she was a house wife. The only dispute between the parties is that the appellants alleged negligence on the part of the respondents in maintenance of the live electric wires whereas the respondents defend the claim on the ground that the electric wires was got cut due to gale and heavy storm which was beyond their control and there was no negligence on their part and also it was contended that the deceased was not supposed to proceed through the managers quarter where the accident occurred. Therefore it is sought by the respondents that the accident occurred not due to any negligence on their part and on the other hand the deceased herself was responsible for her sad demise.
The District Forum has passed the impugned order holding that the appellants are not consumers of the respondent and civil court only is a proper forum to grant the relief as the claim arose out of tortuous liability. It is the contention of the appellants that the respondents are consumers and the District Forum failed to consider the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in 1999 SCC (Criminal) 251, the decision of the State Commission reported in I(2005) CPJ 778 and III (2004) CPJ
645. Hence the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the case of electrocution comes under the purview of C.P.Act., and also in view of the fact that they pay electricity charges to the respondents for supply of electricity to their houses. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the appellants cannot be considered as consumers within the scope of the provisions of C.P.Act.
The respondents had not taken any specific plea in their counter that the appellants are not the consumers within the scope of the C.P.Act. The complexity of the issues involved in the subject matter of the case does not decide whether a consumer forum has jurisdiction to try the complaint. In the absence of any specific plea except that the matter has to be referred to the civil court in view of the evidence to be led by the parties, there is no specific plea that the forum lacks jurisdiction to try the case. Even otherwise, the accident occurred at Paloncha village and the grampanchayat Paloncha pays electricity charges to the respondents for providing the facility of street lights and supply of energy thereto.
Being beneficiaries of the grampanchayat, the appellants are very much consumers and can invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum as provided under the C.P.Act. Therefore, we do not find the finding of the District Forum that the appellants are not consumers, sustainable.
Coming to the question of negligence on the part of the respondents, their only plea is that the high tension lines were maintained and checked up regularly. To the effect they had not brought any evidence on record.
Their statement that the high tension lines were 25 years old itself casts the duty on their part to be alert and cautious to avoid any such disaster as the electric wires were pretty old and there has been every possibility of their being getting cut due to storms and heavy rains. Therefore, the negligence is manifest and there need be any other evidence in the light of the admission of the respondents as to the age of the high tension lines and their vulnerability to the storms and gales at Paloncha village. In these facts and circumstances, we set aside the order of the District Forum and hold the appellants entitled to compensation on account the death of the wife of the appellant no.1.
We rely on the decision of the National Commission in KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD, NOW KNOWN AS KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LTD. & ANR v. SMT. SHARAVVA & ORS reported in III (2002) CPJ 269 (NC) has held that there is deficiency in service in laying power lines loose, hung very low, precariously connected to poles on either side and death due to electrocution and therefore the electricity Board liable to pay compensation with interest.
The deceased was aged 39 years and housewife.
Therefore there need be any occasion to adduce evidence as to establish the income of the deceased and in the circumstances we are of the opinion that a multiplier of 14 is applied to the income of Rs.2000/- per month which comes to Rs.3,36,000/- and deducting 1/3 from the said amount towards the expenses of the deceased the amounts comes to Rs.2,24,000/-. The appellants are also entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium to the appellant no.1 and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. Hence the respondents are liable to pay Rs.2,44,000/- to the appellants.
In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. Resultantly, the complaint is allowed directing the respondents to pay Rs.2,44,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till payment and Rs.2000/- towards costs. On deposit of the said amount, the District Forum shall deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs in the names of appellants no.2 and 3 till they attain majority, in any Nationalized Bank. The appellant no.1 is at liberty to withdraw an amount of Rs.44,000/- and interest accrued on the deposit. Time for compliance four weeks.
PRESIDING MEMBER MEMBER 31.03.2009