State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Apnpdcl, Warangal. vs Nalla Lakpathi on 31 July, 2012
BEFORE THE A
BEFORE
THE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD.
FA 755 of 2011 against C.C. 70/2009 , Dist. Forum, Karimnagar
Between:
1) The
Chairman & Managing Director
APNPDCL, Warangal.
2) The Chief Engineer, APTRANSCO
Now APNPDCL, Warangal
3) The Superintending Engineer
APNPDCL, Karimnagar
4) The Divisional Engineer
APNPDCL, Jagitial
Karimnagar Dist.
5) The Asst. Engineer
APNPDCL, Mallapur Village
Karimnagar Dist. *** Appellants/
Opposite
Parties
And
1) Nalla
Lakpathi, S/o. Yellaiah
Age: 20 years, Student
2) Nalla Yellaiah, S/o. Balaiah
Age: 53 years,
Both are R/o. Mallapur (V&M)
Karimnagar Dist.
*** Complainants
Respondents/
Counsel for the
Appellants: M/s.
O. Manohar Reddy
Counsel for the
Respondents: M/s. K. Venkateshwarlu
CORAM:
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
SMT. M. SHREESHA, MEMBER
&
SRI
S. BHUJANGA RAO
TUESDAY,
THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
ORAL
ORDER:(Per Honble Sri Justice D. Appa Rao, President) ***
1) This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties electricity board against the order of the Dist. Forum directing it to pay Rs. 2 lakhs towards compensation together with interest and costs.
2) The case of the complainant in brief is that on 23.8.2003 at about 5.30 p.m. that mother of complainant and husband of 2nd complainant Smt. Nalla Chinna Raju went to S.C. colony situated by the side of transformer at Mallapur village to fetch her she-buffalo, she came into contact with electrical wire and was electrocuted and died on spot along with she-buffalo. Earlier the residents in the locality complained to the authorities to arrange for gun insulation to avoid electrocution. Had the precautions been taken her mother would not have been electrocuted. On a report the police registered it as a case in Crime No. 105/2003 followed by post-mortem examination. The post-mortem examination discloses that the death was due to electrical shock and electrocution, and the case was referred as accidental death. The deceased was aged 38 years and an agriculturist by profession having 3 acres of land and rearing 10 she-buffaloes. She was earning Rs. 60,000/- to 80,000/- per annum. He lost his mother at young age. His father complainant No. 2 is suffering from paralysis, and therefore he claimed a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs together with interest @ 12% p.a., and costs.
3) The appellant electricity board resisted the case contending that the accident took place at the outskirts of the village. There was no relationship existing between them as consumer, and service provider. No deficiency in service could be attributed against it. The incident had taken place at the transformer where nobody would be permitted to move, which is a restricted and prohibited area, and therefore when the deceased came into contact along with she-buffalo it could not be attributed to them. There was no negligence on their part. They alleged that she was more than 45 years of age and was not doing any work. She was an household woman. There was no cause of action against them, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
4) The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit evidence and that of third party affidavits of Sangarthula Muthaiah and Singarapu Rajam and got Exs. A1 to A18 marked while the appellant electricity board filed the affidavit evidence of its Addl. Asst. Engineer and did not file any documents.
5) The Dist. Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that negligence could be attributed to the electricity department and considering her age and income awarded a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs to be paid with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of filing complaint i.e., 13.4.2009 till the date of payment together with costs of Rs. 1,000/-.
6) Aggrieved by the said order the appellant electricity board preferred the appeal contending that the Dist. Forum did not appreciate either facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have seen that the complaint does not come under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Protection Act as the complainant is not a consumer. The complaint is barred by limitation by virtue of Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act. They have not filed the complaint within two years, and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.
7) The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the Dist. Forum is vitiated by mis-appreciation of fact or law?
8) It is an undisputed fact that first complainants mother Smt. Nalla Chinna Raju is the wife of 2nd complainant. She died of electrocution at the outskirts of the village when she went to fetch her she-buffalo while finding that her she buffaloe was tied to an earth wire and when she tried to rescue she got electrocuted and died evidenced under Ex. A1 FIR. The police registered it as a case in Crime No. 105/2003 u/s174 Cr.P.C. followed by post-mortem examination where the doctors after conducting the port-mortem examination opined that the death was due to electrical shock and electrocution vide Ex. A3. The complainant gave legal notice under Ex. A7 which did not evoke any reply despite the fact that the appellant had received under acknowledgement Ex. A8 to A12. The electricity board alleges that since the deceased died on the outskirts of the village near the transformer a prohibited area they could not be found fault with. It may be stated herein that the National Commission as well as Honble Supreme Court repeatedly held that where the villagers paid for current consumption charges to the electricity board they would be consumers and maintenance of high tension wires meant for supply of power and other accessories like gun insulation lies on them. Their Lordships 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 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.
9) The deceased could not have thought that there would be leakage or that these insulations were open. The unwary villagers would undoubtedly go and end up in electrocution. It is for the electricity department to periodically check and see to it that no untoward incident happens. We may go to an extent in stating that the electricity department is a service provider as defined under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. It is strange that the electricity department is taking contradictory pleas. If a person dies due to home appliances then they contend that they were not concerned for such contingency. It is the look out of the house holder to keep the electrical installations safe. If it is in outskirts, they contend that they are not consumers. We do not intend to say any more in view of various decisions which the Dist. Forum had quoted confirmed by the Honble Supreme Court the electricity is included in the definition of service under the Consumer Protection Act. In the light of the fact that the electricity department did not let in any evidence to prove that the transformer was fenced or that incident had happened within the enclosure.
10) The other contention raised by the electricity department was that the complaint was barred by limitation. The complainant was admittedly born on 16.12.1990 vide Ex. A5 while the death of the deceased his mother took place on 23.8.2003.
He was aged about 13 years. He could not have filed the complaint he being a minor. He alleged in his complaint that his father was bedridden ailing from paralysis. This fact was not contradicted. He after attaining majority filed the complaint on 9.4.2009. Therefore by no stretch of imagination it could be said that the complaint is barred by limitation.
11) Coming to the question of compensation the complainant had filed a certificate Ex. A6 issued by Veterinary Assistant Surgeon stating that the she-buffalo was aged 4 years by the date of death and that she-buffalo was pregnant. The complainant though not filed any proof to show that the deceased was attending on agriculture, the fact remains that she was attending on she-buffaloes would itself disclose that she was an earning member. The electricity department did not adduce any evidence that she was not an earning member. Even assuming that she was not an earning member under the M.V. Act non-earning person annual income was fixed at Rs. 15,000/-. The deceased was aged about 38 years, and the multiplier that could be applied in this case would be 16.
Even if an amount of Rs. 2,40,000/-
is taken as her income (Rs. 15,000 x 16 = Rs. 2,40,000/-) as per the table appended to M.V. Act, if 1/3rd is deducted towards her personal expenses it would come to Rs. 1,60,000/-. If an amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of estate, loss of love and affection is added it would come to more than Rs. 2 lakhs.
Therefore the amount awarded by the Dist. Forum is reasonable and modest. We do not see any mis-appreciation of fact or law by the Dist. Forum in this regard. We do not see any merits in the appeal.
12) In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks.
1) _______________________________ PRESIDENT
2) ________________________________ MEMBER
3) ________________________________ MEMBER 31/07/2012.
*pnr UP LOAD O.K.