State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Smt. Kodapa Ganga Devi vs 1.The Asst Engineer, Tsnpdcl/Tstrnsco on 3 December, 2025
1
ADDITIONAL BENCH
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD
FA. No. 69/2021
AGAINST ORDERS
IN
CC. No.205/2019
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM, ADILABAD
Between :-
Smt. Kodapa Ganga Devi W/o. Kodapa Jaithu
Aged:35 Yrs Occ:- Housewife R/o. H.No.3-9,
Salpalaguda, Wanwat, Dist:Adilabad.
.....Appellant/Complainant.
And
1.Assistant Engineer, TSNPDCL/TSTRNSCO Power House Complex, Adilabad.
2. The Divisional Engineer, TSNPDCL/TSTRNSCO Power House Complex, Adilabad.
3. The Superintending Engineer, TSNPDCL/TSTRNSCO Power House Complex, Adilabad.
4. The Chief Managing Director, TSNPDCL/TSTRNSCO Warangal.
....... Respondents/Opposite parties Counsel for the Appellants : M/s. A.Naveen Kumar Counsel for the Respondent No.1 to 4 : Notice Served QUORUM: Hon'ble Sri K.Ranga Rao - Presiding Officer-
Member- (Judicial).
& Hon'ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, Member (Non Judicial).
WEDNESDAY, THE 3rd DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FIVE ***** Order : (Per Hon'ble Sri K.Ranga Rao- Presiding Officer-
Member - (Judicial).
2
1. This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Complainant U/s.41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying this State Commission to set aside the orders of District Forum, Adilabad passed in CC.205/2019 dt.06.1.2021 and pass such other order/s as prayed for.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. The appellant herein were Complainant and Respondents was the opposite parties in the complaint bearing No.CC 205/2019 before the District Forum Adilabad.
3. The brief case of the complainant is as follows:-
The complaint is R/o.Salpalaguda, Wanwat of Adilabad District and she is mother of deceased Kodapa Laxmi Bai. That on 11.05.2019 at about 12.00 p.m. the deceased Kodapa Laxmi Bai (Herein after called as deceased for the sake of convenience) went to the house of Sidam Lasmu, who is relative of complainant for watching T.V. and at about 12.30 the deceased touched the cooler due to which she came into contact with electrocution and died on the spot due to high voltage power supply. Immediately dead body was shifted to RIMS hospital Adilabad. Upon report lodged by the complainant, P.S. Adilabad Rural registered a case in Cr.No.55/2019, U/Sec. 174 of Cr.P.C. The Police got conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and also P.M.E. That the deceased was hale and healthy and aged about 11 yrs at the time of her death and was studying 5th class. Due to sudden death of the deceased the complainant sustained loss of love and affection over the deceased. The deceased died due to electrocution with high voltage supply which clearly shows the negligence and carelessness service of the Opposite Parties and there was no negligence or fault on the part of the deceased and also there was no defect in the cooler, hence the Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the complainant as the complainant is consumer 3 and having the service connection. That due to supply of high voltage the complainant and other vicinity consumers also sustained loss, but the loss sustained by the other consumers of vicinity of complainant is very low than the complainant as such they did not chose to lodge any complaint with the Opposite Parties or to any other concerned department. The complainant lost her daughter in the above said accident, as such the complainant lodged report with the police against the opposite parties and knocking the doors of this commission for redressal for her grievance. That complainant got issued legal notice on 08.07.2019 demanding the Opposite Parties for payment ex-gratia of Rs.5,00,000/-. Inspite of receiving the notice the Opposite Parties neither chose to give reply nor made any payment to the complainant. As such the above acts of the Opposite Parties nothing but deficiency in service and complainant is entitled for compensation, contending so prayed to allow the complaint.
Upon receipt of notice the Opposite Parties appeared. The Opposite Parties resisted the claim. Opposite Party No.1 filed counter and Opposite Parties No.2 to 4 filed adoption memo adopting the counter of Opposite Party No.1. The averments of the counter are as follows: That on 11.05.2019 the deceased while connecting the cooler pin to the plug board in the house of Sidam Lasmu got electrocuted and died, which is due to failure of insulation incoming service wire and defects in the internal wiring of the house and defective cooler pin and plug board which are owned and maintained by the house owner said Sidam Lasmu and her inmates and the Opposite Parties and their employees have no concern with them, as such the Opposite Parties and their employees cannot be held responsible for the death of the deceased. There was no negligence disservice or carelessness of the Opposite Parties and their employees in maintaining the lines and flow of supply. The allegation of the complainant that there was high voltage of supply in the cooler and when the 4 deceased touched the cooler, she was electrocuted and died are false, baseless and created. It is also false that the other villagers have been effected due to high voltage and that they were less effected and as such they did not complain are false and baseless. If there was high voltage of supply all consumers would have been effected to the same extent but none pas complained of high voltage of supply. In fact the supply was normal and there was no supply of high voltage of power. The police did not implicate any of the employees of the department including the Opposite Parties in the alleged crime. That itself is sufficient to show that there was no negligence, carelessness or disservice on the part of the opposite parties on their employees. Opposite Parties are not aware of the age health and educational qualification of the deceased, as the deceased died on account of her own negligence and also the negligence of negligence, disservice or carelessness of the Opposite Parties and their employees and as such the complainant is not entitled to claim either compensation or even ex-gratia from Opposite Parties for the death of the deceased. That the complainant and the deceased are not the consumers of the Opposite Parties as the incident took place in the house of Sidam Lasmu, as such the complaint is not maintainable under the C.P.Act. The other legal heirs of the deceased are not made as party though they are necessary, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties, contending so prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. During the course of enquiry, to prove her case the complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. A1 to A9. One K. Thirupathi Reddy S/o. Venkat Reddy, Age 52 years, Occ:- Asst. Engineer TSNPDCL, Adilabad Rural filed evidence and got marked Ex.B1 on behalf of opposite party No.1 .
5. The District Forum after considering the material available on record, dismissed. No order as to costs.
5
6. Aggrieved by the above order of the District Commission, Adilabad the Appellant preferred the present appeal vide FA. No.69/2021 with the following grounds of appeal:-
(i) The order of the District Commission is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of case as such the same is liable to be set aside.
(ii) The District should have seen that there is no dispute about the supply of electricity and death of the deceased was due to electrocution as such the District commission ought to have held that the burden lies on the Respondents/opposite parties to show that there was no high voltage supply and further the respondent /opposite party did not place any evidence to show that at relevant time the supply of the Electricity was of normal voltage and not high voltage.
(iii) The District commission failed to see that appellant/complainant is a consumer and there exist the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party as such they cannot escape from the liability in paying the compensation.
7. With the above grounds, the Appellant/Complainant prayed this state commission to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order of the District Commission Adilabad, passed in CC 205/2019 dt.06.01.2021 as prayed for.
8. Both sides represented that the matter is likely to be settled but there was no settlement even after several adjournments were given. Ultimately this commission passed a docket order dt.31.10.2025 "to the effect on 29.08.2025 itself there was a condition that if the settlement is not reached, arguments of both sides will be heard and appeal will be reserved for orders. After this also two more adjournments were given liberally but on 6 31.10.2025 also none appeared there was no representation on the either side. Therefore sufficient time is already given and in view of the above condition arguments of both sides treated as heard and appeal will be reserved for orders.
9.The point that arises for consideration is:-
(i) Whether the impugned order dt.06.01.2021 passed by the District Commission, Adilabad in CC 205/2019, suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified, or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief?
10. To decide the points for the consideration, we have carefully examined the whole material borne by the record and same would manifest that it is the specific case of the complainant that she is mother of the deceased girl who was aged 11 yrs and studying 5th Class. The deceased girl was in the habit of visiting the house of their relative by name Sidam Lasmu for watching TV On 11.05.2019 at about 12.30 Noon the deceased girl went to the house of the above relative for watching TV and at about 12.30 Noon the deceased girl touched the cooler and died on the spot due to electrocution, due to high voltage power. Immediately the dead body of the deceased girl was shifted to RIMS Hospital wherein the doctors conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased girl and issued Ex.A3 PME Report. Of course the Mother of the Complainant lodged a complaint with the police of Adilbad Rural Police Station who registered the same as a case in crime No.55/2019 U/sec. 174 of Cr.P.c and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, they conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased girl before the presence of punch witness and ultimately after 7 conducting the whole investigation filed the final report (charge sheet) wherein it is categorically mentioned that L.W.4 Sidum Lasmu who is the owner of the house and who is the relative of the deceased girl and her parents used to run TV in the house during the summer season. Due to heat, he put a water cooler by giving power supply through Electric Power Extension box. The deceased girl not knowing about the same accidentally step on the said box, received electric Shock and died on the spot. The Police of Adilbad rural police station in the Conclusion of their investigation stated that there was no faul play to be suspected and nobody speaks adverse over the death of the deceased. It is clearly accidental death of Electric Shock.
In view of the above facts the point which need to be examined and considered that whether there was negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents/opposite parties 1 to 4/officials of the Electricity Department?
To decide the above point we have scrupulously and meticulously scanned the whole material borne by the record including the pleadings, evidence (oral by way of affidavits and documentary vide Ex.A1 to A9 and B1 and from the same it can be culled out that if L.W.4 Sidum Lasmu had informed the deceased girl, that he had arranged the Electricity Connection to the cooler to reduce the heat in the house where the TV is watched, the deceased girl ought not have touched the electrical Extension Box in which case she had not received the electric Shock and died. Viewed from many angle having examined the whole material borne by the record it is ostensible/Apparent that there was no negligence of any sort on the part of the respondent/ electricity officials in the incident which happened 8 that resulted in the death of the deceased girl and therefore we hold that the respondents 1 to 4/Electricity department officials are not liable to pay the compensation which is claimed by the complainant.
Having examined the whole material borne by the record, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant has miserably failed to establish deficiency on service on the part of respondent/Electricity officials and further the incident of receiving Electric Shock by the deceased girl was not taken place at her house but at the house of her alleged relative and therefore she does not come under the definition of the consumer under the consumer protection Act.
It is settled law that whenever the consumer complaint is filed by anybody, the initial burden lies on him/her to prove their case. In the case on hand the complainant is unable to prove the same to prove her case as such we hold that the complaint is liable to be dismissed. We have gone through the order of the District Commission and nothing appears to us to interfere in the same as the said order in our considered view is well reasoned order as such the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
In the result the appeal is dismissed without costs.
Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Court on 03.12.2025.
SD/- SD/-
----------------------------------------------
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(NJ)
Dated : 03. 12.2025.
UK