State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Muppasani Siva Parvathi, Krishna ... vs ( Apspdcl, Vijayawada And One Another on 28 March, 2013
A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD FA 472/2012 against CC 300/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum II, Krishna District at Vijayawada. Between : Muppasani Siva parvathi, W/o late Rambabu, Budawada Village, Jaggaiahpet Mandal, Krishna District . Appellant/complainant And 1. The Superintending Engineer( Operation) Southern Power Distribution company of A.P. Limited ( APSPDCL), Circle office, Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. The Managing Director Southern Power Distribution Company of A. P. Limited ( APSPDCL), Corporate office, H. No. 19-13-65/A, Srinivasapuram, Tirupati 517 503, Chittoor District .. respondents/opposite parties Counsel for the Appellants : Party in person Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. P. Vinod Kumar Coram ; Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao Honble Member
And Sri T. Ashok Kumar .. Honble Member Thursday, the Twenty Eighth Day of March Two Thousand Thirteen Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Honble Member ) ****
1. This is an appeal preferred by the dis-satisfied complainant as against the orders dated 24.05.2012 passed in CC 300/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum II, Krishna District at Vijayawada . For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :
2.
The gist of the complainant is that one M. Rambabu, the husband of the complainant was rearing sheep and when one of his sheep was found missing he went in search of the same leaving the village at 11.00 AM on 07.05.2009. He was expected to return in the evening but did not return. On information about the police finding a dead body in the fields of Penuganchiprolu, the complainant went there and found her husband died due to electrocution as he came into contact with snapped electrical live wire. The said information was sent to the opposite parties and the personnel from electrical department came to the place of incident and made spot enquiries. There was dereliction of duties and responsibilities of the opposite parties and also deficiency in service. The deceased was a daily wage worker and under Minimum Wages Act the daily wage is Rs.112/- and thus by applying 18 multiplier the compensation was calculated at Rs.6,28,992/-. The complainant received Rs.1,00,000/- on 02.08.2011 on interference of Honble Lokayukta of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, the present complaint was filed for balance amount.
3. The 1st opposite party filed written version in the form of affidavit denying the liability and disputing the claim and contended that the dispute is not a consumer dispute and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and they have no knowledge of the accident referred to in the complaint. On 07.05.2011, electrical wires were disconnected due to heavy wind and the deceased accidently came into contact with the electrical wire and died of electrocution. As per FIR the accident occurred in the field in RS No. 550/2009 of Penuganchiprolu of one. D. Koteswara Rao and the deceased was unconnected with the said land and that the deceased trespassed into the said land and was negligent which led to the accident and that the wire was in black colour and visible from long distance and that the parents of the deceased are necessary parties etc. It was also pleaded by the opposite party that on the direction of the Honble Lok Ayuktha of Andhra Pradesh the opposite parties paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant through cheque dated 02.08.2011 and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The complainant and ADE Operation of APSPDCL , Chillakallu filed evidence affidavits filed reiterating their respective stands aforesaid and Ex. A1 to A7 were marked on behalf of the complainant and no documents were marked by the opposite parties.
5. Having heard both side and considering the material on record, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed the complaint in part and directed the OP 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs. Two lakhs to the complainant with 9% Interest per annum from the date of complaint and costs of Rs.2000/- giving 30 days time for compliance.
6. Dis satisfied with the said amount, the complainant filed this appeal and mainly contended that the amount awarded is meager and altogether she is entitled for Rs.5,40,000/- and also pleaded that the District Forum committed mistake in educating Rs.one lakh granted as exgratia and thus prayed to allow the appeal and enhance the amount.
7. Heard the appeal.
8. The point for consideration is, whether the complainant is entitled for enhancement of compensation ?
9. There is no dispute that the deceased Rambabu husband of the complainant died on 07.05.2009 due to electrocution. In the fields in Rs No. 550/3 of Penuganchiprolu belonging to P. Koteswara Rao. Ex A5 copy of case diary, Ex A6 copy of FIR in cr No. 117/2009 of Penuganchiprolu P.S.. Ex. A7 copy of inquest report and Ex. P8 copy of PM report also establish the same. In view of the decision, between M.P.State Electricity Board Vs. Sahil Kumari and others reported in AIR 2002 SC 551 if the energy transmitted causes injury or a death to a human being who gets unknowably tracked the primary liability to compensate the suffers is that of the supplier. The basis of such liability is the risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. Even though the Ops contended that the snapped wire was in black colour and visible from long distance to the deceased there is no dependable evidence in the said context and therefore the contention of the Ops that the deceased was negligent could not be appreciated in their favour. There is no dispute that on the direction of Honble Lokayuktha of Andhra Pradesh the Ops department paid Rs. One lakh to the complainant towards compensation through cheque dt. 2.8.2011. in view of the decision of Honble High Court of AP in M. Laxmaiah Vs SE, A. P. Transco , Nalgonda in WP 5536/2004 decided on 24.6.2010 receipt of exgratia cannot be made platform to deny the compensation to the victims of electrocution cases. The District Forum taking into consideration of age of the deceased as 24 years applied 18 multiplier and arrive at conclusion that compensation payable to the complainant at Rs.2,88,000/- and further taking into consideration of loss of estate etc. fixed liability at Rs.2,lakhs apart from Rs.one lakh exgratia paid. The complainant did not make out any case for enhancement for compensation. The Ops submitted a decision of this Commission FA 228/2011 and argued that in the said case besides payment of Rs. One lake exgratia paid only Rs.75,000/- was awarded by reducing the amount from Rs. 3,27,200/- to Rs.75,000/- while confirming rest of the order. In the said decision, the age of the deceased was 40 years and the District Forum used 16 multiplier. In the presence case, the age of the deceased was 24 years and thus 18 multiplier was taken into account by the District Forum and calculated the compensation at Rs.2,88,000/- taking into account of the income at Rs.24,000/- per annum on the avocation of shepherd daily wage labourer and out of the said amount already paid an amount of Rs.one lakh towards exgratia was deducted and thus held that the remaining liability will be at Rs.1,88,000/- That apart loss of estate etc was taken into account and thus arrived at a conclusion that remaining liability of the opposite party is at Rs. 2 lakhs. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum.
10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs of the Appeal.
Member Member Dated 28.03.2013.