State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Habeeb Khan S/O Nazeer Khan vs 1. The Asst.Engineer, Apnpdcl, And ... on 18 April, 2013
BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD F.A.No.707 OF 2012 AGAINST C.C.NO.50 OF 2011 DISTRICT FORUM ADILABAD Between: Habeeb Khan S/o Nazeer Khan Aged 41 years, Occ: Air Compressor Business R/o Ramnagar, Adilabad Dist.Adialabad Appellant/complainant A N D 1. The Asst.Engineer, APNPDCL, Adilabad, Dist.Adilabad-001 2. The Superintending Engineer, APNPDCL Dwarkanagar Adilabad, Dist.Adilabad-001 Respondents/opposite parties Counsel for the Appellant M/s Md.Aleemuddin Counsel for the Respondent M/s P.Vinod Kumar QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER THURSDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Honble Member) ***
1. Unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. He is a business man engaged in the business of air-compressor vulcanizing at petrol Pump on National High Way No.7 and he is having electricity connection to his shop vide S.C.no. 12069 and he used to keep tyres, tubes and other parts of vehicles in the shop for sale. On 25.04.2009 the appellant was informed by his friend that his shop caught fire and he rushed to the spot by which time fire staff arrived there and they did put off the flames at the petrol pump and later at the appellants shop and due to the delay caused, the property in the shop was damaged and the appellant sustained loss to the extent fo `1,59,000/-. The police, Adilabad registered a case in Crime No.77 of 2009 and filed final report. The shop is the sole source of the appellant and he claimed from the respondents on 15.12.2010 an amount of `1,50,000/- towards loss sustained and as they failed to pay the amount to him, the appellant filed the complaint.
2. The respondents resisted the claim on the premise that the appellants shop was located exactly below 11 KV line and he raised his shop encroaching the municipal land. It is stated that on 25.04.2009, the appellant had put waste tyres to fire below the 11 KV line as a result of which huge flames raised and on account of flames and sparks his shop was burnt. On account of flames 11 KV live wired was snapped and power supply was automatically tripped off at substation and . There was no high voltage on the feeder and in the area and if there was high voltage, the other shops would have faced the same problems and the meters would have been burnt. The appellants shop was burnt not on account of snapping of live wires and it was due to burning of waste tyres and tubes by the appellant.
3. The appellant filed his affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A11. On behalf of respondents, the first respondent filed his affidavit and the preliminary report was marked ExB1.
4. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on the premise that the appellant failed to prove that the live wire fell on the appellants shop and the appellant had not filed positive photographs and the cause of fire was not due to high voltage and snapping of conductor.
5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant has filed appeal contending that the appellant was at his house when the fire accident occurred due to short circuit and immediately on receiving the information, he rushed to his shop. It is contended that the District Forum has not considered the ratio laid in M.P .State Electricity Board vs Shail Kumar reported in 2002(20ALD 4.
6. The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum suffers from misappreciation of facts or law?
7. The appellant having shop at Dwaraknagar, in Adilabad and the shop was gutted in fire accident that occurred on 25.04.2009 are beyond any dispute. It is also not disputed that some of the itmes kept in the shop were damaged in the fire accident. Mohd Yousuf Khan has lodged complaint with the police, Adilabad on 26.04.2009 stating that his shop, and the shops of Hussain Khan and Habeeb Khan were gutted at night on 25.04.2009 due to short circuit and he sustained loss to the tune of `1,00,000/- and he intimated the owners of the shops and the Fire Department which had extinguished the fire and the owners of the shops sustained loss to the tune of `6,20,000/-.. The panch witnesses opined that the fire accident occurred accidentally and the shop owners sustained loss to the tune of `4,80,000/-.
8. The police, Adilabad filed final report before the Magistrate concerned wherein it is stated that the first respondent herein opined that the fire accident might not have happened due to electric short circuit and the fire officer opined that the cause of fire was electric origin. The opinion of Assistant director of APFSL was stated to be the burnt items such as tyres and tubes did not contain inflammable hydrocarbons.
9. As against the opinion of the fire officer and the director of APFSL, the respondent no.1 had filed preliminary report opining that there was no high voltage in the area and on the feeder and if there was high voltage at the time of fire accident, the nearby shops and houses could have been affected and meters therein would have been damaged.
10. The fire officers opinion expressed in the letter dated 4.06.2009 goes to show that the cause of fire is of electric origin and the old electric wires and the letter reads as follows:
On the observation of the Fire Accident place the supposed cause of fire is electric origin as the old electricity wires of the shops may be worned out due to summer heat which is about 45o centigrade, the insulation of the current wires got damaged and short circuit happened resulting in caught fire to the combustible material and spread rapidly on the old tyres, tubes and rubber burnt.
11. The opinion of the Assistant Director of APSFSL is incorporated in the Final Result to the effect that any of the burnt pieces of items such as C.Ds, electric fuses, tyres and tubes etc did not contain inflammable hydrocarbons supports the opinion of the fire officer that the fire accident occurred due to short circuit and negatives the opinion of the respondent no.1 that had there been high voltage resulting short circuit, only shop of the appellant could not have been burnt. It is pertinent to note that in addition to the shop of the appellant, shops of two other businessmen were also gutted causing damage to some of the items kept therein.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the respondents did not take proper care of the live wires and in supply of appropriate voltage of power which resulted in the fire accident. He has relied upon the decision in Shail Kumar(supra) which reads as under:
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.
13. The appellant claimed a sum of `1, 50,000/- towards the loss said to have been caused due to the fire accident. The quotation for `89,400/- and sales order for `30,056/- dated 27.04.2009 do not help in determining the quantum of amount in terms of damage caused to the items kept in his shop at the time of the accident. The appellant cannot claim as a matter of right the compensation from the respondents as he constructed the shop encroaching the municipal land and he failed to show that he obtained any permit for construction of the shop. The electricity department in such accident usually pay compensation as exgratia and we consider the appellant eligible for exgratia of `25,000/-.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum. The respondents are directed to pay an amount of `25,000/- together with costs of `3,000/- . Time for compliance four weeks.
Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt.18.04.2013 కె.ఎం.కె*