National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Divisional Engineer (Operations), ... vs Smt. Bujamma & Ors. on 26 February, 2013
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3457 OF 2009 (Against the order dated 02.06.2009 in FAIA No. 1001/2009 & FASR No. 2019/2009 of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad) 1. Divisional Engineer (Operations) APSPDCL, Gandhi Road Chittoor, Andhra Pradesh 2. Assistant Engineer (Operations) APSPDCL, Gandhi Road Pennur Town, Chittoor District Andhra Pradesh Petitioners Versus 1. Smt. Bujamma W/o Late Subramanyam Naidu 2. M. Madhavi D/o Late M. Subramanya Naidu 3. M. Sridevi D/o Later Subramanyam Naidu 4. M. Narasamma W/o Late Chengamma Naidu (All respondents are R/o D.No. 4-59, Chherlopalli Village H/o Pulikallu Penumarru Mandal Chittoor District, Andhra Pradesh Respondents BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. VINEETA RAI, MEMBER For Petitioners : Mr. A. Jaya Raju, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. K.S. Rama Rao, Advocate Pronounced on 26th February, 2013 ORDER
PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER
1. This revision petition has been filed by the Divisional Engineer (Operations) and another, Petitioner herein and Opposite Parties before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chittoor (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) being aggrieved by the order of Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission), which had dismissed their appeal and upheld the order of District Forum in favour of M. Bujamma & others, Original Complainants before the District Forum and Respondents herein.
2. In her complaint before the District Forum, Respondent No.1 had contended that her late husband M. Subramanyam Naidu (hereinafter referred to as the Deceased), who was having an electrical service connection for his poultry farm taken from the Petitioners after paying the due charges, had on 25.05.2008 gone out following failure of electricity being supplied to his farm and accidentally stepped on an electrical wire which had fallen to the ground and being a live wire, he received burn injuries and got electrocuted because of which he died.
It was alleged that it was because of the gross-negligence and deficiency in service in failing in their statutory duty to properly maintain the electrical connections and to keep the live wire in a secure condition that it had broken and fallen to the ground resulting in the death of Respondent No.1s husband. The fact that the deceased had died because of electrocution was confirmed in the inquest as also the post mortem conducted following his death. The deceased aged about 45 years at the time of his death was hale and hearty and was the only bread winner of the family.
He was getting an income of about Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- from his poultry farm which had 10,000 birds and he was also having 7 acres of agricultural land, in which commercial crops were cultivated and from which he was getting an income of Rs.70,000/- to Rs.1 Lakh per annum. Respondents, therefore, sent a legal notice to the Petitioners asking them to pay Rs.7 Lakhs as compensation. On not receiving a favourable response, Respondents filed a complaint before the District Forum and requested that the Petitioners be directed to jointly and severally pay Respondents an amount of Rs.7 Lakhs as compensation with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of death of the deceased i.e. 25.05.2008 till the date of realization as also Rs.50,000/- towards damages, mental agony and hardship in not settling the claim within a reasonable time.
3. The above contentions were denied by the Petitioners, who claimed that it was deceaseds own negligence, which resulted in his death because after the live wire had snapped and fallen to the ground on account of heavy winds and gale, instead of informing the Electricity Department to fix it, he tried to meddle with it and fix it at his own risk, resulting in his death. Petitioners contended that this was further confirmed by the inquest report, wherein it was clearly mentioned that there was a burn injury on the deceaseds hand clearly indicating that he had intentionally handled the wire. It was also contended that the Petitioners cannot be held guilty of negligence in maintenance of the electrical connection because the service wire is to be provided and maintained by the consumer as per the relevant rules and, therefore, it is for the consumer to ensure that the service wire is maintained in a proper condition. Petitioners also challenged the Respondents contention regarding the income that the deceased was earning from the poultry farm by stating that it was a small poultry farm with only 1000 birds.
4. The District Forum, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence filed before it, allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioners to pay the Respondents a sum of Rs.4,41,000/- as compensation as also Rs.1500/- as costs within 8 weeks from the date of the order.
5. Being aggrieved, Petitioners filed an appeal before the State Commission, which dismissed the same by observing as follows:
9) The opposite parties made an endeavor in this appeal to extricate themselves from the charge of negligence by trying to show that negligence if any was with the deceased. This is an absurd proposition as service providers are supposed to discharge the minimum duty of looking after the safety of the consumer besides extending the facility.
The safety of the consumer is very much resting in the hands of the opposite parties as service providers and it is rightly observed by the Dist. Forum that the consumer was rather shut out from affecting service connection, and ultimately it was the responsibility of the electrical service provider to give connection after satisfying themselves about the soundness of the system got fixed up by the consumer. In this case, the connection at the live end that takes power into the service of the complainant was found snapped. That means the said connection which could not have been given except by the opposite parties not securely fastened and thereby was made tenuous and that even some wind and gale had broken that connection jeopardizing the lives of the inmates or the persons who were associated with the premises where connection was given. This spectacle, on the face of it, demonstrates negligence on the part of service provider. In other words this is a very appropriate case in which the principles of Res ipsa loquitur are squarely applicable.
10. The opposite parties have yet taken another funny plea that the injuries that the deceased sustained to his hand would go to show that he meddled with the live wire. On the other hand it proved that in all his innocence the deceased had touched the live wire. The complainants did mean to say that the deceased touched the wire without knowing that the electricity was passing through the said wire. The negligence of the opposite parties was at the root of the matter. This could have been warded off by the opposite parties by making the connection quite solid or by at once switching off the power to the service point, the moment gale and wind was noticed by them which they were supposed to do. So, viewed from any angle it is amply clear that negligence of the opposite parties was very much at the roof of this whole episode.
The State Commission also upheld the compensation awarded by the District Forum by observing that it was lenient but scientific in its approach and had applied the multiplier factor, which had been consistently accorded judicial recognition by the dicta of various superior courts.
6. Hence, the present revision petition.
7. Learned counsel for both parties made oral submissions.
8. Learned counsel for the Petitioners stated that the learned Fora below erred in not appreciating the fact that the deceased by touching the live wire in a bid to repair it had died, for which Petitioners cannot be held guilty or responsible. He should have instead immediately contacted the Electricity Department to fix the wire for restoration of the electricity. It was also contended that there were a very large number of electrical connections and although all efforts are made by the Petitioners Department to maintain the wires in a proper condition, sometimes because of heavy winds and gale, as happened in this case, they can snap and fall to the ground, which is due to an act of God and not because of any deficiency in service on the Petitioners part. It was also pointed out that the injury on the hand of the deceased clearly indicated that he had intentionally touched the wire lying on the ground and the death was, therefore, not accidental.
9. Learned Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand reiterated the facts as stated before the Fora below and pointed out that on the basis of evidence produced before the District Forum, including the inquest and post mortem reports, it was clearly proved that because of the Petitioners gross negligence and deficiency in service in properly maintaining the electricity connections that resulted in its snapping and falling to the ground that the deceased died when he accidentally touched the live wire in the dark following failure of electricity in the area.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence on record. We note that it was an external wire in the poultry farm provided by the Petitioners against payment, which had snapped and fallen to the ground. Under these circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the Petitioners that the responsibility for maintenance of the wire was that of the deceased. Clearly, the Petitioners are service providers, to whom deceased had paid for sanction and installation of the electricity connection including wiring, and it was, therefore, their responsibility to ensure that it was properly maintained and kept in a good condition so that it does not snap. We are also unable to accept the Petitioners contention that the burn injury in the hand indicates that it is the deceased who intentionally touched the wire in a bid to repair it for restoration of electric supply, which resulted in his death. The Fora below after considering the evidence before them concluded that the deceased, who had gone out to his poultry farm following failure of electricity in the area, had accidentally stepped on the live wire which had snapped and fallen on the ground and had resulted in his death due to electrocution.
In our revisional jurisdiction, we see no reason to interfere with this fiinding.
11. Taking into account the above facts, we agree with the finding of the Fora below that the Petitioners failed in their duty as service providers in ensuring that the electrical wires were properly maintained, moreso live wires which on contact can cause a serious risk to human life. We are also of the view that the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum and upheld by the State Commission is just and reasonable and also uphold the same. We, therefore, direct the Petitioners to pay the Respondents a sum of Rs.4,41,000/- as compensation as also Rs.1500/- as costs within a period of 8 weeks from the date of the order.
12. The revision petition stands dismissed in the above terms.
Sd/-
(ASHOK BHAN, J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
(VINEETA RAI) MEMBER Mukesh