State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.The Superintending Engineer, ... vs .Smt. Janni Simhachalam ,W/O.Late ... on 15 May, 2014
BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD F.A.No.830/2013 against C.C.No.169/2011, Dist. Forum, Vizianagaram. Between: 1.The Superintending Engineer, Operation, APEPDCL., Dasannapeta, Vizianagaram. 2. The Divisional Engineer, APEPDCL (Operation), Bobbili, Vizianagaram District. 3. The Asst. Divisional Engineer,(Operation), APEPDCL., Makkuva, Vizianagaram District. Appellants/ Opp.parties And 1.Smt. Janni Simhachalam ,W/o.late Sivudam Dora, Aged 30 years, residing in D.No.1-12, Saraivalasa, Makkuva Mandal, Vizianagaram Dist. 2. Smt. Janni Tirupatamma, W/o.late Sivudam Dora, Aged 28 years, 3. Janni Anuradha, D/o. Late Sivudam Dora, aged 8 years, 4. Janni Siva, S/o.Late Sivudam Dora, aged 6 years, (Complainant Nos.3 and 4 are being minors represented by Smt. Janni Simhachalam). 5. Janni Sai Prasad, S/o.Late Sivudam Dora, Aged 2 years, (Complainant No.5 is being minor represented by Smt Janni Tirupatamma residing in D.No.1-12, Saraivalasa, Makkuva Mandal, Vizianagaram Dist. Respondents/ Complainants. Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.P.Anand Seshu Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.M.Ramgopal Reddy QUORUM: SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER, AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY MAY TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN.
Oral Order: (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Honble Member) *** This appeal is directed against the order dt.03.01.2013 of the District Forum, Vizianagaram made in C.C.No.169/2011, which is filed by the respondents herein seeking direction to the appellants herein to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs towards compensation/damages due to the death of Janni Sivudum Dora together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of death till the date of realisation and also to award damages for the mental agony caused to the respondents herein and to award costs.
For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as they arrayed in the complaint.
The brief case of the complainants as set out in the complaint is that the complainants 1 and 2 are the wives, the complainant no.3 is the minor daughter and complainants 4 and 5 are the minor sons of the deceased Janni Sivadum Dora, who died on 07.09.2011 due to electric shock and burn injuries.
On 07.09.2011, when the deceased Janni Sivadum Dora along with his brother-in-laws i.e. Mamidi Gopal went to their agricultural fields for doing agricultural works, accidentally they touched high tension electrical wires that were cut and fallen on the ground, by their legs, in Dadigudla fields and both of them got electrical shock and burn injuries. They were shifted to Community Health Centre, Makkuva, where the doctor declared them as dead due to electrical shock and burn injuries. The Asst. Engineer, APEPDCL, Makkuva gave report to the S.H.O., Makkuva Police Station and the same was registered as a case in Crime No.48/2011 under Sec.304 and 201 of IPC.
It is stated by the complainants that the accident occurred only due to gross negligence and dereliction of duties of the employees of the APEPDCL. The deceased Janni Sivadum Dora was aged 35 years by the time of his death.
He was quite hale and hearty by the time of his death and he was only earning member of his family. He used to earn Rs.200/- per day. The employees of APEPDCL have not supervised the high tension electrical wires in the field, on the date of the accident, which shows there is gross negligence and dereliction of duties. Hence the complaint.
The opposite party no.3 filed counter, which was adopted by opposite parties 1 and 2, denying the material allegations made in the complaint and contended that the complainants suppressed non departmental fatal accident occurred to two male persons i.e. M.Gopal, S/o.Ramana Dora and Janni Sivudanna Dora, S/o.Suranna Dora in the agricultural fields of Akkena Appalanaidu, during night hours of 6.9.2011 at Saraivalasa Village of Makkuva Mandal, due to touching of electrical fencing provided around the agricultural fields for corn plantation of Sri Akkena Appalanaidu, when the power supply was extended from the motor switch board of nearby agricultural pump sets of Akkena Simhachalam bearing Sc.No.202-000131. The opposite parties further contended that on 07.09.2011 at 10.30 hours it was found that SS2-63 KVA Distribution Transformer was kept OFF and the LT Conductor wire passing across the road was unwounded at nearby electrical pole. The two dead bodies were shifted from original accident spot of agricultural fields to Saraivalasa-K.Peddavalasa road point. The two dead bodies were kept on the unwounded conductor wire and thus they created it as an electrical accident due to conductor cut. Therefore, the cause of death of the above said two persons cannot be attributed to APEPDCL.
There is no negligence or dereliction of duties on the part of the opposite parties or its staff. The complaint is premature as the police investigation is not completed. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
During the course of enquiry, in order to prove their case, the complainant no.1 gave her evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the opposite parties Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.
Upon hearing the counsel for both the parties and on consideration of the material on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and allowed the complaint in part directing the opposite parties 1,2 & 3 jointly and severally to pay compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- to the complainants within two months from the date of the order and also directed apportionment of the compensation among the complainants paying Rs.50,000/-
each to the complainants 1 and 2 and Rs.20,000/- each to the complainants 3, 4 & 5. The opp.parties are further directed to pay Rs.3000/- towards expenses incurred for cremation of the deceased and also costs of Rs.2000/- to the complainants 1 and 2 equally. The District Forum directed that the amounts payable to the complainants 3, 4 and 5, who are minors shall be deposited in any of the nationalised/scheduled bank till the attainment of majority.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opposite parties preferred the above appeal questioning the validity and legality of the impugned order of the District Forum.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire evidence placed on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District Forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
The learned counsel for the appellants/opp.parties submitted that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the complaint, as the case does not fall under the Consumer Dispute, that the documents filed by the opp.parties and the police enquiry clearly reveal that there is no negligence on the part of the opposite parties, that the supply was extended illegally from the motor switch board of nearby agricultural pump set, that the opp.parties are not given any opportunity to lead evidence to substantiate their defence. The entire material on record and the evidence supported the contention of the opp.parties. The District Forum without considering all the above facts into consideration, erroneously allowed the complaint and passed the impugned order, which is liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/complainants supported the impugned order of the District Forum.
It is an undisputed fact that the deceased Janni Sivudam Dora died on 07.09.2011 of electrical shock and burn injuries due to touching of high tension electrical wires that were cut and fallen on the ground on Dadgudla fields, while he was going along with his brother-in-law Mamidi Gopal to their agricultural fields for attending agricultural works. The said fact was also established by Ex.A1, the copy of the FIR, Ex.A2 copy of the Death Certificate relating to Sivudam Dora, Ex.A5 Inquest Report and Ex.A6 copy of the Postmortem Certificate relating to the post-mortem conducted on the dead body of the deceased Janni Sivudam Dora.
The contention of the opposite parties is that the non departmental fatal accident occurred to two male persons i.e. Janni Sivudanna Dora and M.Gopal in the agricultural fields of Akkena Appala Naidu during the night hours of 06.09.2011 at Saraivalasa Village, Makkuva Mandal, due to touching of electrical fencing provided for plantation of Sri Akkena Appalanaidu and the power supply was extended from the motor switch board of nearby agricultural pumpset of Sri Akkena Simhachalam bearing S.C.No.202-000131 and that the two dead bodies were shifted from original accident spot of agricultural field to Saraivalasa, K.Peddavalas Road point ( Gorja way to Agl.
Fields) and that two dead bodies were kept on the unwounded conductor wire and thus they created it as an electrical accident due to conductor cut. Thus there is no negligence or dereliction of duties on the part of the opposite parties or its staff .
In support of their above contention, the opposite parties filed Ex.B1 Charge Sheet filed u/s.304,201,379 u/s.34 IPC & Sec.135 of A.P. Electricity Act,2003. It is mainly alleged in the charge sheet that the accused therein committed theft of electrical energy by illegal means to meet their needs, without obtaining any permission from the Electrical Department to avoid electrical charges. Thus two documents i.e. Exs.B1 Charge Sheet and Ex.B2 Inquest Report do not establish that the dead bodies of the deceased Janni Sivudanna Dora and another Mamidi Gopal were shifted from the original accident spot of agricultural field to SaraivalasaK Peddavalasa Road point and kept the dead bodies on unwounded conductor wire and thus created it as electrical accident due to conductor cut. Even if it is proved that there was such shifting of dead bodies and placing of the dead bodies on the unwounded conductor wire as contended by the opposite parties, the opposite parties cannot escape from their liability to pay compensation to the complainants, who are legal heirs of the deceased, in view of the fact that the deceased has nothing to do with the field of Akkena Appalanadu and his illegally drawing power from the switch board of bore well, which was connected to the fencing around his agricultural fields for corn plantation i.e. about the power theft allegedly committed by Akkena Appalanaidu.
The deceased is a third party, who has nothing to do with the theft of power by the said Akkena Appalanaidu.
There can be no dispute that it is the look out of the opposite parties to prevent such pilferage of power by farmers by supervision of high tension electrical wires by their men. It appears that they have not conducted any such supervision over the high tension electrical wires. Had they conducted supervision of high tension electrical lines, farmer like the said Akkena Appala Naidu would not have resorted to theft of power. Therefore, there is negligence on the part of the opposite parties in not conducting supervision of high tension live wires.
The Honble Supreme Court of India observed in a case between MADHYA PRADESH ELECTRICITY BOARD Vs. SHAIL KUMAR AND OTHERS reported in 2002 (2) ALD 4 (SC) as follows:
That it is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the board and if the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into, the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. Further observation is that so long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangers 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 load would be under peril. It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning of such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the mangers 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 there on should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.
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 forceable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability cast on such person is known in law as strict liability . The company supplying electricity is liable for the damage without proof that they had been negligent. Therefore, it was opined that the doctrine of strict liability applies and electricity board cannot deny compensation and it cannot plead that electrocution was the result of some miscreants pilfering energy clandestinely. It was further observed that merely because the illegal act could be attributed to a stranger is not enough to absolve the liability of Electricity Board regarding the live wire lying on the road.
Hence even without issuing notice to the respondents the case was dismissed.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and we do not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order of the District Forum to interfere with it . Hence the appeal fails.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
MEMBER MEMBER Pm* Dt. 15.05.2014