State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Assistant Engineer, Apepdcl And ... vs 1. Kavita Ammanna W/O Late Gopala Rao on 15 May, 2014
BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT VISAKHAPATNAM F.A.NO.1299 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO. 56 OF 2013 DISTRICT FORUM SRIKAKULAM 1. Assistant Engineer, APEPDCL Kotabommali Village and Mandalam Srikakulam District 2. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation APEPDCL of A.P. Narasannapeta Srikakulam District 3. Divisional Engineer, Operation Circle APEPDCL, Tekkali, Srikakulam District 4. Superintending Engineer, APEPDCL Srikakulam Appellants/opposite parties A N D 1. Kavita Ammanna W/o late Gopala Rao Aged about 40 years, Household duties R/o Yelamanchili Village, Kotabollami Mandalam Srikakulam District 2. Kaviti Tulasidasu S/o late Gopala Rao Aged about 23 years, Cultivation R/o Yelamanchili Village Kotabommali Mandalam, Srikakulam Dist 3. Kavi Madhusudhana Rao S/o late Gopala Rao Aged about 21 years, Cultivation R/o Yelamachili Village, Kotabommali Mandalam Srikakulam District Respondents/complainants F.A.NO.1300 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO. 57 OF 2013 Between: 1. Assistant Engineer, APEPDCL Kotabommali Village and Mandalam Srikakulam District 2. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation APEPDCL of A.P. Narasannapeta Srikakulam District 3. Divisional Engineer, Operation Circle APEPDCL, Tekkali, Srikakulam District 4. Superintending Engineer, APEPDCL Srikakulam Appellants/opposite parties A N D 1. Kuna Appanna S/o late Ayyanna Aged about 66 years, Cultivation R/o Yelamanchili Village, Kotabommali Mandalam, Srikakulam District 2. Kuna Damayanthi D/o Appanna Aged about 27 years, Cultivation & Household Duties, R/o Yelamanchili Village Kotabommali Mandalam, Srikakulam Dist. 3. Kuna Jagannaiakulu S/o Appanna Aged about 25 years, Cultivation R/o Yelamanchili Village Kotabommali Mandalam, Srikakulam Dist. 4. Kuna Kalyani D/o Appanna Aged about 23 years, Cultivation R/o Yelamanchili Village Kotabommali Mandalm, Srikakulam Dist. Respondents/complainants F.A.NO.1301 OF 2013 AGAINST C.C.NO. 63 OF 2013 Between: 1. Assistant Engineer, APEPDCL Kotabommali Village and Mandalam Srikakulam District 2. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation APEPDCL of A.P. Narasannapeta Srikakulam District 3. Divisional Engineer, Operation Circle APEPDCL, Tekkali, Srikakulam District 4. Superintending Engineer, APEPDCL Srikakulam Appellants/opposite parties A N D 1. Bendi Gopamma W/o late Mounedra Aged about 34 years, Household Duties R/o Yelamanchili Village, Kotabommali Mandalam Srikakulam District 2. Bendi Lavanya D/o Mownedra Aged about 12 years, R/o Yelamanchili Village Kotabommali Mandalam, Srikakulam District 3. Bendi Eswara Rao S/o late Mounwnedra Aged about 10 years, R/o Yelamanchili Village Kotabommali Mandalm, Srikakulam District (Petitioners 2 & 3 are being minors rep. by their mother and natural guardian Bendi Gopamma) Respondents/complainants Counsel for the Appellant M/s P.Anand Seshu Counsel for the Respondents M/s M.Viswanadhan QUORUM: SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER
AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER THURSDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAYOF MAY TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN Oral Order (As per Sri Thota Ashok Kumar, Honble Member) ***
1. All these three appeals F.A.No.1299, 1300 and 1301 of 2013 ARE preferred by the Electricity Distribution Company against the orders of the District forum awarding compensation for negligence on the part of the opposite parties in CC 56 OF 2013, CC 57 OF 2013 and CC 63 of 2013 respectively. Though separate orders were passed in each of these complaints filed by the complainants, in the light of the fact that common questions of fact and law arise, we deem it fit that a common order can be passed in all these matters. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder.
F.A.No.1299 of 2013 is taken as lead case.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the husband of the complainant is a small farmer. on 5.4.2012 at about 11.30 a.m. the complainant and the porters of the village weighing the groundnuts on the terrace of the house of one Kuna Appanna touched the iron tripod to 11 KV electric live wires and as a result the husband of the complainant, namely Gopal Rao, so also two others viz., Bendi Mownendra, Kaviti and Kuna Appamma died on the spot and some others received injuries due to electrocution. Station House Officer, P.S. Kotabommali registered a case in Cr.No.45 of 2012 u/s 304-A of IPC against the opposite parties and the concerned police conducted inquest over the dead bodies. The post-mortem report also reveals that the husband of the complainant and two others died due to electrocution. Prior to it, the husband of the complainant and two others made representations to the electrical department to change the high tension wires but it did not take any steps to change the high tension wires. The complainant is a housewife with two children who solely were depending on the earnings of her deceased husband. According to the complainants the death of the deceased occurred due to the gross negligence and dereliction of duties of the employees of the opposite parties. The deceased was aged about 40 years hale and healthy and was earning `6000/- per month. On account of the sudden accidental death of the deceased the complainants who are his legal heirs/dependents are deprived of his support and hence the complainant claiming compensation of `5,00,000/- lakhs and costs etc.
3. The 1st opposite party filed written version resisting the complaint and it was adopted by the other opposite parties.
The gist of the said written version is that the construction of house by one Kuna Appanna underneath 11 KV line is inappropriate and risky. The Yelamachinli Grama Panchayat Sarpanch brought the issue with regard to the shifting of 11 KV to the notice of the opposite party and he also assured that the costs of shifting would be met from the general funds of Gram Panchayat. The opposite parties conducted a field inspection through Assistant Engineer Operation Kotabommali and prepared an estimation at `81,623/- which was submitted to the Sarpanch Yelamachali Grampanchayat but the opposite party did not receive any response from the Sarpanch and therefore the opposite parties did not shift the lines. There is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties. It is a mistake to construct a house under 11 KV line. The SHO in his investigation also came to know the fact that the shifting was pending due to the delay in payment of costs for shifting by the Kotabommali Gram Panchayat. There is no deficiency or negligence in service on the part of the department. The complaint is bad for non-joinder misjoinder of necessary parties and the complaint is not maintainable and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Both sides filed affidavit evidence, Ex-A1 to A9 were marked on behalf of the complainants and Exs.B1 to B8 were marked on behalf of the opposite parties.
5. Having heard both side the District Forum vide impugned order holding the opposite parties rendered deficient service awarded compensation of `1,28,500/- to the complainants together with costs of `3000/-
6. Feeling aggrieved with the said order the complainants filed the appeal F.A.NO.1299 of 2013 contending that on the assurance of Sarpanch Yelamachili Gram Panchayat that they would bear the cost of the shifting of 11 KV line, the opposite party prepared the estimation for shifting of 11 KV lines at RS.81,623/- and submitted the same to the Sarpanch Yelamachali Gram Panchayat but they have not paid any amount for shifting of the 11 KV lines. The District Forum failed to consider the decisions of the Apex Court in 2005(6) SCC-156 and 1997(7 SCC-298 which was also followed by the Honble High Court in 2010(5) ALD 575. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter and it ought to have seen that the age, wage and dependency of the deceased were not proved.
6. Heard both side counsel with reference to their respective contentions in detail.
7. Now the point for consideration is whether the orders of the District Forum is vitiated either in law or as facts?
8. As seen from the description of the complainants in the complaint, the 1st complainant is the wife, 2nd and 3rd complainants are the sons of the deceased Kaveti Gopala Rao. Rw1, 1st opposite party in his affidavit evidence did not specifically deny the said relationship of the complainants with the deceased but pleaded ignorance. Hence for the purpose of this case, the relationship of the complainants with deceased as mentioned in the complaint is accepted as true and thus they were dependents and legal heirs of the deceased. The case of the complainants is that on 05.04.2012 at about 11.30 hours the deceased went to the terrace of Kuna Appanna house along with some other porters of his village to weigh the groundnuts and in the process the iron tripod came in to contract with an high electrical high tension live wire and on account of electrocution he died so also two others and some others received injuries.
The first complainant deposed so in her affidavit evidence and it has not been impeached by the opposite parties by any convincing means. Whereas the defense of the opposite parties is that one Kuna Appanna one of the deceased in the accident constructed the house underneath 11 KV line knowingly that it is highly risky. It is also pleaded by the opposite parties that when the Sarpanch of Yelamanchili Panchayat assured to bear the cost of shifting the high tension wires, the opposite parties got estimated the cost of shifting the high tension wires at `81,623/- and submitted the same to the Sarpanch but the Sarpanch did not take any action to deposit the cost of shifting and in such circumstances no negligence could be attributed to the opposite parties.
8. The Honble Supreme Court of India in M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar reported in 2002 (2) ALD 4 (SC) in an electrocution case held 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.
9. In view of the decision a person/concern under taking an activity involving hazardous or risk exposed to human life is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injuries suffered by any other person irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of such undertaking and it was so held basing on the law of strict liability. This Commission in several cases of such a nature relying on the said Apex courts decision awarded compensation to the dependents of the deceased in electrocution cases and therefore the contention of the opposite parties that consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint could not be appreciated in their favour. In such circumstances the contention of the opposite parties electricity department in Ex.B7 and B8 that the death occurred on account of the negligence of the deceased is not at all helpful for the said department.
10. There is no dependable evidence from the side of the opposite parties that the house in question was constructed by Smt Kuna Appamma underneath the existing 11 KV line. The said construction was to the view of one and all and certainly it had taken considerable time for completing the construction. In such circumstances nothing prevented the department personnel to stop such construction anticipating the probable danger but they did not do so for the reasons best known to them and in that view also there is negligence on the part of the electricity department and thus the opposite parties were negligent and responsible for the said accidental death of the deceased. Merely because the Sarpanch did not deposit the required cost as estimated for shifting 11 KV high tension lines the opposite parties cannot avoid their responsibility in answering the claim of the complainant. In such circumstances, the decisions reported in 2005 (6) SCC and 1997 (7) SCC 298 and 2010(10) ALD 575 referred to in the grounds of appeal are also not helpful for them in this case.
11. When it is believed that on account of the negligence of the opposite parties the deceased died the Legal heirs/dependents of the deceased are entitled for compensation from the opposite parties. For calculating the compensation by multiplier method age, avocation and income of the deceased are relevant. As seen from the facts of the case there are certain lapses on the part of the deceased and he also contributed to some extent for his death. In such circumstances, assigning satisfactory reasons, the District Forum depending on the 2nd schedule under MV Act calculated the compensation at `2,57,000/- and for the contributory negligence on the part of the deceased ordered the opposite parties to pay only `1,28,500/- which is half of the said compensation. Absolutely there are no reasons much less valid reasons to set aside the said order. Therefore in view of the above discussion both the appeal F.A.No.1299 of 2013 and also appeals F.A.No.1300 and 1301 of 2013 are liable to be dismissed conforming the order of the District Forum.
12. In the result FA 1299 of 2013, F.A.No.1300 and F.A.No. 1301 of 2013 are dismissed confirming the respective orders of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs of the appeal.
Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order.
MEMBER MEMBER Dt.15.05.2014 కె.ఎం.కె.*