State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.Kummari Roddalla Rajavva, vs Northern Power Distribution Company Of ... on 24 July, 2024
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD
(ADDITIONAL BENCH)
FA. No. 535/2018
AGAINST ORDERS
IN
CC. No. 29/2014
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM,
NIZAMABAD
Between
Smt. Kummari Roddalla Rajavva,
W/o. Late.Rajaiah, Aged about: 38 years,
Occ: Agriculture, Caste: BC-Kummari,
R/o. H.No.1-20, Kancharla Village,
Bhiknoor Mandal, Nizamabad District.
2. Mr. Kummari Roddalla Mahesh,
S/o. Late. Rajaiah, Aged about: 16 years,
Minor, (Sl.No.2 Rep. by the Guardian &
Natural Mother,Sl.No.1 Kummari Roddalla Rajavva,
W/o. Late. Rajaiah).
3. Mr. Kummari Roddalla Madhu,S/o. Late. Rajaiah,
Aged about: 15 years, Minor, (Sl. No.3 Rep.by by the
Guardian And Natural Mother, Sl. No.1 Kummari
Roddalla Rajavva, W/o. Late. Rajaiah).
4. Mr. Kummari Roddalla Suresh, S/o. Late. Rajaiah,
Aged about: 14 years, Minor, (Sl. NO.4 Rep. by the
Guardian And Natural Mother, Sl. No.1 Kummari
Roddalla Rajavva, W/o. Late. Rajaiah)
...Appellants/Complainants
And
Northern Power Distribution Company of
Telangana State Ltd., (TSNPDCL), Rep. by:
1. The Superintending Engineer (Operations),
Northern Power Distribution Company of
Telangana Ltd., (TSNPDCL), Operation
Circle Office, Power House Compound,
Varni Chowrastha, Nizamabad - 503001.
2. The Managing Director, TSNPDCL,
Corporate Office, H.No.1-1-53, Chaitanyapuri,
Opp: NIT Petrol Pump, Hanamkonda - 506004,
Warangal District.
...Respondents/Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Appellants/ Complainants : Smt. K.R. Rajavva (PIP)
Counsel for the R1 & 2/ Opp. parties Nos.1 & 2 : M/s. Zakir Ali Danish
2
QUORUM: HON'BLE SRIRANGARAO, MEMBER (M-J),
&
HON'BLESMT.R.S.RAJESHREE, MEMBER (N-J)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOUR DAY OF JULY,
TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR
*****
ORDER :(HON'BLE SRI RANGA RAO, MEMBER JUDICIAL)
1. This appeal is filed by the Appellants/Complainants No. 1 to 4 U/s. 15 of C.P. Act, 1986, praying this Commission to allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned order dt.31.07.2018 passed in CC.No.29/2014 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nizamabad and consequently to allow the complaint as prayed for.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellants No.1 to 4 in this appeal were Complainants Nos.1 to 4 and the Respondents No.1 & 2 were Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in CC No.29/2014 before the District Forum, Nizamabad.
3. The brief facts of the case of the Complainants No.1 to 4 as per the averments of the complaint are as follows:-
The complainants submit that their family is eking livelihood on agriculture by cultivating their small land holding. The husband of the first Complainant Kummari Roddalla Rajaiah, Aged 38 years met with fatal electrical accident due to loose and hung live electrical wire and died on the spot due to "Electrocution" on 24.09.2010 at his agricultural field. The victim is the consumer/customer of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 vide agricultural service connection No.209.
4. The police authorities of Bhiknoor police station registered the incident on 24.09.2010 as crime N o.135/2010. The FIR, the inquest report and the postmortem report issued by the Deputy Medical Officer, 3 Area Hospital, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District show that the death of K.R. Rajaiah was caused due to "shock due to electrocution".
5. The complainants further submit that "The Supply of Electricity or other Energy" is „Service‟ within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 owe responsibility to supply the electricity without any deficiency of service and should not cause loss of human life. There is deficient and imperfect service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
Sec.2 (d) of the CP Act, 1986, defines the word "Consumer"
inclusively. The deceased husband of the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2 (15) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and U/s.2 (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Apex Court held in M.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Sahil Kumar & Others (AIR 2002 SC 551) that if the energy so transmitted causes injury or death to human being who gets unknowingly trapped, the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier. The basis of such liability is the risk inherent in the very nature of such activity.
6. As per the version of the Complainant there is "deficient and imperfect services" on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 as defined U/s. 2 (1) (d) and Sec.2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, (Act 68 of 1986). The Opposite Parties have also grossly violated statutory provisions of law as to supply of "Electricity".
Therefore, the Complainants have demanded the Opposite Parties for payment of tentative ex-gratia relief besides suitable compensation/damages to a tune of Rs.6,00,000/- for the untimely death of the deceased who is the husband of the first complainant, 4 due to "Electrocution". The Opposite Parties stated that complainant requested for grant of tentative ex-gratia relief besides adequate compensation/damages is under consideration of the department and will decide the matter shortly and went on saying the same. The first complainant has approached the Opposite Parties for many times to ascertain the status of her claim but all the efforts failed.
7. As a last resort, the first Complainant has approached the Hon‟ble High of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by filing W.P. No.6426 of 2014 with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to pay tentative ex-gratia relief besides suitable compensation/damages.
The Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by its order dated 06.03.2014 directed the Writ Petitioner/Complainant to make afresh representation to the concerned authorities and the said authorities/Opposite Parties to consider the same and to pass appropriate orders thereon. In compliance with the orders of Hon‟ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad dated 06.03.2014, the Opposite Parties has sanctioned tentative ex-gratia relief of Rs.1,00,000/- vide memo No. CGM (OP)/NPDCL/WGL/GM (OP)/DE (O&M)A1/D.No.3812/13, dated 24.03.2014, and paid the amount in cash on 04.04.2014. But the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 did not respond to the claim for compensation/damages. The first complaint got issued legal notice to the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 on 05.05.2014 for payment of balance amount of compensation/damages of Rs.5,50,000/- within 30 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice. But no response is evoked from the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.
58. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India held that the Writ Jurisdiction under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot substitute common law remedy when disputed questions are involved and the proper remedy is to approach appropriate legal remedy. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal. No.1026 of 2007 held that the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions established under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, have to decide the case and the consumers cannot be directed to approach a Civil Court for decision only on the ground that the complaint disclosed disputed questions.
That complainant is the consumer U/s. 2 (15) of the Electricity Act, 1986, and the subject matter fell within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
9. The Opposite Party No.1 filed their counter contending that at the very outset the present complaint by the Complainants against the Opposite Parties, before this Hon‟ble Forum, is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The non department fatal accident occurred to Sri Kummari Roddalla Rajaiah, S/o. Narayana, on 24.09.2010 at 13:30 hours while he was working in the fields unfortunately touched the service wire which is having damaged insulation and got electrical shock and died and the said accident was purely due to the negligence on the part of the victim/deceased, as the service wire maintenance is to be done by the consumer/deceased only, and there is no fault on the part of the departmental staff and further the died due to loose and hung live electrical wire while the deceased was operating his agricultural works at his field, he touched the service wire which was damaged.
The deceased might have taken care of service wire which was in 6 damaged condition. It is also true that the police registered the case vide FIR No.135/2010 and conducted enquiry but they did not find any fault on the electricity officials. There is no fault on the electrical department and officials and it is occurred only due to the negligence of the consumer i.e., deceased only.
10. As per the version of the complainant that the Department has sanctioned Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation/ex-gratia amount vide a memo No.CGM/(OP)/NPDCL/WGL/GM (OP)/DE/(O&M)/A1/D.No.3812/13-14 dated 24.03.2014 and the amount is paid to Smt. Kummari Roddalla Rajavva i.e., the Complainant No.1 herein on 04.04.2014 as per the directions of the Hon‟ble High court in Writ Petition No.6426 of 2014 dated 06.03.2014 and the said amount is paid towards full and final satisfaction to the Complainants. The compliance of the order of the Hon‟ble High Court was also observed by the Hon‟ble Lokayuktha by the order in complaint No.3244/2013/B1 dated 07.04.2014. The Complainants also executed a compromise deed dated 04.04.2014 admitting and acknowledging the receipt of the said amount towards full and final settlement/satisfaction of compensation for the death of Roddalla Rajaiah. The copy of the compromise deed is herewith filed for the kind perusal of the Hon‟ble Court. As such, having received the compensation amount in full satisfaction, the Complainants herein ceased their right to claim further compensating as such the Complainants have no locus stand to file the present complaint. To the legal notice of the first complainant, a suitable reply was given.
That in view of the above facts, the Complainants have no right to claim any further amounts and they are not entitled to claim the 7 amount. Hence, no cause of action arose to file the present complaint as such the present complaint is fit to be dismissed.
11. During the course of the enquiry, before the District Forum, Nizamabad, to prove the case of the Complainants, the first Complainant being the wife of the deceased Rajaiah and mother of the Complainants Nos.2 to 4 who are the minors, filed her evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, one Mr. Prabhakar Rao who is Asst. Divisional Engineer of TGNPDCL (Northern Power Distribution Company of Telangana Ltd., of Nizamabad District) filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B6.
12. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint holding that the complaint is barred by limitation.
13. Aggrieved by the above order, the Appellants/Complainants Nos.1 to 4 preferred this Appeal vide FA No.535/2018 with the following grounds.
The order of the District Forum is contrary to law and facts of the case as such the same is liable to be set aside.
The District Forum erred in dismissing the complaint but the same ought to have been allowed.
The District Forum failed to consider that the period of limitation depend upon the sequence of events and the limitation period extends if there is continuity of the cause of action.
The District Forum failed to consider the fact that as the Respondents/Opposite Parties failed to pay the ex-gratia to the Complainants for the death of the deceased Rajaiah due to electrocution, the Complainant No.1 approached the Hon‟ble High Court, Hyderabad by filing Writ Petition No.6426/2014 for issuance of directions to the Opposite Parties for sanction of ex-gratia and also to pay compensation to the Complainants for the death of the deceased due to electrocution.
8 The District Forum failed to consider the fact that the Hon‟ble High Court while disposing the Writ Petition No.6426/2014 vide its orders dated 06.03.2014 directed the Writ Petitioner/First Complainant herein, to make fresh representation to the superintending engineer (operation), Nizamabad and on such application, superintending engineer (operation), shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon, as such the cause of action continued and a fresh period of limitation begins on 06.03.2014.
The District forum failed to consider the fact that the Opposite Parties in view of the above orders of the Hon‟ble High Court, passed speaking orders communicating the sanction of ex-gratia relief of Rs.1,00,000/- vide a memo dated 24.03.2014 and paid the said Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.04.2014 to the complainants. As such, the cause of action continued and period of a limitation begins afresh on 04.04.2014.
The District Forum failed to consider the settled the law that "the petitioner is entitled to receive such ex-gratia without prejudice to her right to sue the licensee and its functionaries for compensation by availing appropriate legal remedy.
The District Forum failed to appreciate that the presiding officer of the District Forum, Nizamabad, at admissions stage of the complaint, considered all sequences, facts of the case, continuity of events and after satisfying about the period of limitation directed the registration of the complaint. As such, the complaint of the Complainants was numbered as CC 29/2014.
The observation of the District Forum that the Complaints/Appellants herein have accepted ex-gratia amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Opposite Parties and gave an assurance/undertaking to the Opposite Parties that they will not approach any court or forum for compensation. The said observation is against the law and it is the statutory right of the Complainants to claim compensation for the death of the deceased and for the same they filed the complaint CC NO.29/2014 and the District Forum instead of allowing the same by considering the written arguments and the rulings filed and relied upon by the Complainant, erroneously dismissed the complaint and the same is not maintainable under law and is liable to be set aside. The District Forum failed to consider that the undertaking obtained by the Opposite Parties from the Complainants that they will not approach any forum for claiming compensation for the death of the deceased is void, illegal and legally not enforceable as per Sec.28 (a)
(b) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
The District Forum failed to consider the fact that the Opposite Parties are duty bound to conduct periodical inspections and testing of consumers‟ installations as per Rule 46 (1) (a) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956.
The District Forum failed to consider that as per the Rule 77 (3) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, the live service wire shall be maintained at minimum height of 4.6 meters or 15 feet. But at the scene of the accident site, the height of live wire is about 7 feet due to which the accident was occurred and deceased died on the spot due 9 to electrocution and due to the untimely death of the deceased, the Complainants lost their only earning member and due to the same they lost their livelihood.
The District Forum failed to appreciate the fact that the deceased met with untimely death due to the negligence of Opposite Parties of not checking the installation which they provided to the deceased at his agricultural field and the same amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties as such they are liable to pay suitable compensation to the Complainants.
The District Forum, Nizamabad has done great injustice to the Appellants/Complainants by dismissing the complaint of the Complainants on irrelevant grounds, and failed to deliver justice to the Complainants for the untimely death of the deceased.
14. With the above grounds, the Appellants/Complainants prayed this State Commission to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order of the District Forum, Nizamabad and consequently to allow the complaint as prayed for.
15. The docket shows that there has been no representation for Appellants for several adjournments. It is observed written arguments were filed on behalf of the Appellants/Complainants on 16.12.2019.
The appeal was adjourned from time to time and finally posted to 10.07.2024 on which date having heard the arguments of the Respondents/Opposite Parties and since written arguments have already been filed on behalf of the Appellants/Complainants, this appeal is reserved for orders.
16. The point that arises for consideration is:
(i) Whether the impugned order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the District Forum, Nizamabad, in CC No.29/2014 suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
17. To decide the points for consideration, we have carefully examined the whole material borne by the record and the same would manifest that it is the specific case of the Complainants that Kummari Roddalla Rajaiah was husband of the first Complainant and father of Complainants Nos.2 to 4. On 24.09.2010 while the said Rajaiah was 10 attending to the agricultural works in his field and while he was carrying the paddy heap on his head, his hands contacted/touched the live wire hanging above and received fatal electrical injuries and died on the same day due to electrocution. The first Complainant lodged complaint about the same with police of Bhikanoor police station vide Ex.A1 FIR and the police basing on the said complaint, registered the crime vide FIR No.135/2010 U/s. 174 of IPC. As the criminal law was set into motion, police conducted investigation during which they conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased vide Ex.A2 inquest report dated 24.09.2010 and also got the postmortem examination conducted over the dead body of the deceased Rajaiah vide Ex.A3 postmortem examination report dated 24.09.2010 by the Deputy Medical Officer, Area Hospital, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District and after completion of the investigation filed the final report vide Ex.A4 dated 30.09.2010, before the Second Class Magistrate-Cum-Tahsildar, Bhikanoor.
18. The outcome of the investigation as seen from Ex.A4 final report shows that the deceased Kummari Roddalla Rajaiah, aged 38 years, on 24.09.2010 while attending to agricultural works in his small holding and while carrying paddy heap on his head, his hands contacted with the live wire hanging above due to which he sustained injuries and died due to electric shock on way to the hospital, Kamareddy. Thus, Ex.A1 FIR, Ex.A2 inquest report, Ex.A3 postmortem examination report and Ex.A4 final report of the investigation, conclusively establish the fact that the deceased died due to electrocution.
19. It is the further version of the Complainants that the victim/the deceased Rajaiah was consumer/customer of the Respondents/Opposite Parties vide agricultural service No.209. The "Supply of Electricity or other energy" is the „Service‟ within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (o) of CP Act, 1986. The Respondents/Opposite Parties owe responsibility to supply electricity without any deficiency of service and should not cause loss of human life. Due to "Deficient and Imperfect Services" of the Respondents/Opposite Parties, the deceased Rajaiah met with untimely death due to electrocution. The first Complainant requested the Opposite Parties to pay ex-gratia and 11 compensation for the untimely death her deceased husband. But, the Opposite Parties dodged the matter stating that her request for grant of ex-gratia and compensation is under consideration of the department and will decide the matter shortly. The first Complainant approached the Opposite Parties many times but the same is of no use and the Opposite Parties have not paid any ex-gratia or compensation to her.
20. It is the further version of the Complainants that as the Respondents/Opposite Parties have not paid any ex-gratia or compensation for the untimely death of the deceased due to electrocution, the first Complainant being the wife of the deceased, having waited for more than three years and as the Opposite Parties electricity department has not come forward to pay any ex-gratia and compensation for the untimely death of her deceased husband, knocked doors of the Hon‟ble High Court by filing Writ Petition No.6426/2014, seeking directions to the Opposite Parties to pay the ex- gratia and the compensation for the untimely death of her decease husband who died due to electrocution. The Hon‟ble High Court while disposing the said Writ Petition vide its orders dated 06.03.2014, directed the Writ Petitioner who is the first Complainant herein, to make a fresh representation to the superintendent engineer (Operations), Nizamabad, APNPDCL and on such representation, the superintendent engineer shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon.
21. It is the further version of the Complainants that in view of the orders of the Hon‟ble High Court in the Writ Petition No.6426/2014 dated 06.03.2014, the Opposite Parties paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 04.04.2014, towards ex-gratia but, did not respond to the claim of compensation/damages of the Complainants though they are entitled for the same. Hence, she got issued legal notice dated 05.05.2014 to the Opposite Parties demanding them to pay compensation/damages of Rs.5,50,000/- for the untimely death of her deceased husband and the Opposite Parties though received the said notice has not paid any compensation much less as claimed by the Complainants. Hence, she filed the complaint before the District Forum, Nizamabad, with the prayer to award compensation and costs as they are legally entitled for the same.
1222. But, on the other hand, it is the contention of the Opposite Parties electricity department that on the date of incident the deceased unfortunately touched the loose and hung live electrical wire at agricultural field while attending to agricultural works and got electric shock and died on the same day and the same is due to the negligence on the part of the victim/deceased. There is no fault of Opposite Parties as such, there is no deficiency of their part. They have already paid ex- gratia of Rs.1,00,000/- to the first Complainant and they need not pay any compensation to the Complainants. It is also the further contention of the Opposite Parties that the Complainants received the said ex- gratia amount toward full an final settlement and have given undertaking to the effect that they will not make any claim in future against the Opposite Parties for further amount. As such, the complaint filed by the Complainants is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed and the District Forum rightly dismissed the same and said order is sustainable under law.
23. As seen from the impugned order dated 31.07.2018 passed in CC No.29/2014, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground of limitation holding that the complaint was filed after lapse of limitation of two years. It appears that the District Forum calculated two years period of limitation provided U/s. 24 (2) of CP Act,1986, from the date of death of deceased i.e., 24.09.2010.
24. At this juncture we feel it germane to mention here that basing on the representations made by several consumer associations and public at large "the ex-gratia" was introduced on humanitarian ground by the electricity department, the Opposite Parties herein in the event of unnatural death of non-departmental persons in fatal accidents taken place due to electrocution, to that extent proceedings were issued vide proceeding No.NOC (CS) MS No.132 dated 11.08.2007, and the Government Letter No.6166/PR-11 (1) 2007-1 energy dated 25.08.2007, within a time bound period.
As per the said proceedings Opposite Parties are liable to pay ex- gratia in terms of departmental policy to the Complainants as the deceased Kummari Roddalla Rajaiah who is the husband of the first complainant and father of Complainants Nos.2 to 4, met with fatal 13 electrical accident and died due to the same on 24.09.2010 at his agricultural field while attending to the agricultural works. But, admittedly the Opposite Parties have not paid any ex-gratia to the Complainants until the first Complainant knocked the doors of the Hon‟ble High Court of Hyderabad by filing Writ Petition No.6426/2014 and in view of the directions of the Hon‟ble High Court vide its order dated 06.03.2014, at last the Opposite Parties paid ex-gratia of Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant on 04.04.2014. As seen from the order of the Writ Petition, the Hon‟ble High Court directed the Writ Petitioner/first Complainant to make a fresh representation to the superintendent engineer (operations), Nizamabad, who was also directed by the Hon‟ble High Court to consider the same and pass appropriate orders on the same. The Hon‟ble High Court gave the above direction on 06.03.2014, having considered the submission of the Writ Petitioner/the first Complainant that Opposite Parties have not paid ex- gratia to her even after lapse of three years for the untimely death of her deceased husband due to electrocution. So from the same it can be concluded that the Complainants have the continuity of the cause of action since 24.09.2010 the date of the incident in which the deceased died.
25. It is the version of the Appellants/Complainants that the Respondents/Opposite Parties, in compliance with the orders of Hon‟ble High Court, dated 06.03.2014 issued in W.P. No.6426/2014, issued sanction orders vide proceedings of APNPDCL, Warangal, vide Memo No. CGM (OP)/NPDCL/WGL/GM (OP)/DE(O&M)/A1/D.No.3812/13-14, dated 24.03.2014 for payment of monetary relief of Rs.1,00,000/- and paid the said amount on 04.04.2014 but did not pass any speaking orders as to the Compensating/Damages for deficiency of service. The Opposite Parties informally stated that Compensation/Damages will be paid only on the adjudication of case by the competent Consumer Redressal Forum or Civil Court.
The above version of the Complainants is not denied by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 electricity department.
1426. It is the version of the Complainants that as the Opposite Parties electricity department have not passed any speaking orders on the representation of the first Complainant about the compensation/damages for deficiency of service on their part, Complainants have accrued fresh cause of action on 04.04.2014 as Opposite Parties paid ex-gratia on the said date and therefore, the fresh limitation period starts from 04.04.2014 from which date the period of two years for filing the complaint by the Complainants is to be calculated. As seen from the material borne by the record the Complainants filed the present complaint on 02.07.2014 and the same shows that the Complaint is filed within the period of limitation.
27. Having examined all the above facts, we are of the considered view that the Complainants have continuity of the cause of action to file the complaint and Sec.14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would come to the rescue of the Complainants with regard to the aspect of the limitation. The observation of the District Forum that "the Complainants approached this forum for separate reliefs of compensation and damages after lapse of limitation i.e., two years from the date of death as such the complaint is dismissed", is not correct and sustainable under law in the facts and the circumstances of the case as such, the said finding of the District Forum that the complaint is barred by limitation, is liable to be set aside as such, we hereby set aside the said finding and further we hold that the complaint of the Complainants is well within the period of limitation.
28. At this juncture we feel it germane to mention that "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 checkups on electrical installations and take adequate precautions to ensure that no live parts/wires are so exposed as to cause any damage. Further they shall take safety measures by providing with a device approved by the electric inspector for rendering the line electrically harmless in case it breaks. It is the duty of the employees of the Opposite Parties particularly Opposite Party No. 1 to make a periodical checkups on the electrical installations which fall under their jurisdiction and to stop the illegal tapping of the electricity by anybody and to take necessary action against the culprits. In the 15 case on hand, admittedly, four persons were tapping electricity illegally with a binding wire by connecting the same to the over headline live electric wire. Opposite Party No.1 has to check such types of culprits. The Hon‟ble National Commission in a case reported in 2011 CJ 1084 "held that the technicalities, operating and supply of power is the duty of the department and for the defects about the same the personal of the concerned electricity department are to be held responsible and the same also can be taken as the deficiency of service on the part of electricity officials such as Opposite Parties more particularly opposite party No.1 herein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Madhyapradesh Electricity Board Vs. Sahel Kumari and others, which case was decided on 11.01./2022 elaborately discussed about tortious liability of the electricity department in case of electrocution and consequential death and after discussing the strict liability, held that the electricity department/board has to pay compensation to the victims of electrocutions. At para No.7 of the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that "it is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into it, the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. It is the lookout of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment at para No.8 further held that "a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risky 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 Complainants placed reliance on the orders of the two Writ Petitions i.e., Writ Petition No.511/2006, decided on 29.07.2010 and W.P. No.5536/2004 decided on 24.06.2010, passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad, wherein the Hon‟ble High Court held that "the Respondent is liable to pay ex-gratia in terms of the departmental policy, the same shall be paid to the petitioner as per the quantum prescribed at the time of the death. Petitioner is entitled to receive such ex-gratia without prejudice to his right to sue the licensee 16 and its functionaries for compensation by availing appropriate legal remedy."
29. The Complainants also placed reliance on the orders dated 26.02.2013 passed by the Hon'ble NCDRC, New Delhi, in RP No.3457/2019 in Divisional Engineer (Operations) APCPDCL, Chittore, Andhra Pradesh and another Vs. Smt. Bujjamma and Others, held that "the department had failed in its duty as service provider in ensuring that the electrical wires were properly maintained more so, live wires which on contact can cause a serious risk to human life.
30. It is the version and evidence of the Complainants that at the place of the accident scene, the height of the live wire is about 7 feet as against the statutory minimum height of 4.6 meters or 15 feet, due to which the victim/deceased K. Rajaiah, was caught in loose and hung electric wire. The Complainants in their written arguments submitted that U/R.77 (3) of Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, if an overhead line is passing over a field (not Road) then the minimum height above the ground level of the lowest conductor should not be less than four meters or 12 feets. The height of live service wire at the accident place is about 7 feet.
The above version of the Complainants is not denied by the Opposite Parties. The very fact that the hands of the deceased contacted/touched the loose and hung live wire while he was carrying heap of paddy, supports the above version of Complainants as such, we hold that there was deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties, due to which the deceased met with untimely death due to electrocution.
31. Considering the above proposition of law in the rulings referred to supra, since the deceased died due to electrocution, we are of the considered view that the Complainants are entitled to the just compensation for the death of the deceased as such we hold that the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 31.07.2018 passed by the District Forum, Nizamabad, in CC No.29/2014 and consequently the complaint of the Complainants is 17 allowed and the reliefs granted to the Complainants will be mentioned in the result portion of this appeal.
32. In the case on hand, the deceased was aged 38 years at time of his untimely death due to electrocution. In the complaint the Complainants mentioned a sum of Rs.180/- as the daily income of the deceased and at that rate, the monthly income for 26 days after deduction of 1/3 for the personal expenses of the deceased is shown as Rs.2600/- and the annual income is shown as Rs.31,200/- to which the multiplier 16 if applied as per schedule-II of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the amount of compensation would be Rs.4,99,200/-. The Complainants in their complaint also mentioned the first Complainant is entitled to compensation under the head consortium and further the Complainants are entitled to just compensation under the head loss of a state and they are also entitled to a sum of Rs.25,800/- towards funeral expenses and the hold the Complainants claimed a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- towards compensation for the untimely death of the deceased due to electrocution.
33. This Telangana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad, in its order dated 22.08.2017 passed in FA No.501/2014 (arisen out of order dated 28.02.2014 in complaint case No.CC No.13/2013 of District Forum, Medak) followed the procedure of awarding compensation for the death of a person due to electrocution as per schedule-II of Motor Vehicles Act,1988. A copy of the judgment in the said FA No.501/2014 is filed on behalf of the Complainants. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the said procedure can be followed for awarding compensation in this case.
34. Taking into consideration of the age of deceased and the income of the deceased shown by the Complainants, as the same is not denied by the Opposite Parties, we are of the considered view that the complaint of the Complainants is to be allowed as prayed for but with some change in the rate of interest claimed by the Complainants.
35. In the result, the appeal No.535/2018 is allowed and the impugned order of the District Forum, Nizamabad, dated 31.07.2018 passed in CC No.29.2014 is set aside and the complaint of the 18 Complainants i.e., CC No.29/2014 is allowed directing the Opposite Parties to pay to the Complainants a lump sum compensation of Rs.5,25,000/- with interest @9% p.a., from the date of death of deceased i.e., 24.09.2010 till the realization of the said amount, for the untimely death of the deceased due to electrocution.
The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards the costs.
Time for compliance is 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Typed to the dictation to the steno on system, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on 24.07.2024.
SD/- SD/-
--------------- ------------------
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(NJ)
Dated : 24.07.2024.
BSR