State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Parne Vasantha vs 1.Additional Asst Engineer, ... on 24 July, 2024
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.631 OF 2019
AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.116 OF 2018,
DISTRICT CONSUM ER COMM ISSION, WARANGAL
Between:
Smt. Parne Vasantha, W/o Late Papi Reddy,
Age : 47 years, Occ.: Household,
R/o H.No.3-102, Mecherajpalli (V & Post),
Nellikuduru Mandal, Warangal District
Now bifurcated to Mahabubabad District, 506368(P).
.....Appellant/Complainant
And
1.Additional Asst. Engineer, Operation, TSNPDCL, Nellikuduru (P&M), Mahabubabad District.
2. Divisional Engineer, Operation, TSNPDCL, Mahabubabad, Mahabubabad District.
3. Superintending Engineer, TSNPDCL Ltd., Operation, Hanamkonda (P&M), Warangal Urban District.
4. The Chairman and Managing Director, TSNPDCL. H.No.2-5-31/2, Corporate Office, Vidyut Bhavan, Nakkalagutta, Hanamkonda (P&M), Warangal Urban Dist. 506001 (P) .....Respondents/Opposite Parties Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant: Sri Kunamalla Karunakar Counsel for the Respondents/Opposite Parties : M/s Zakir Ali Danish FA.NO.637 OF 2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.116 OF 2018, DISTRICT CONSUMER COMM ISSION, WARANGAL Between:
1. The Additional Asst. Engineer, Operation, TSNPDCL, Nellikuduru (P&M), Mahabubabad District.
2. Divisional Engineer, Operation, TSNPDCL (P&M), Mahabubabad District.
3. The Superintending Engineer, TSNPDCL Ltd., Operation, Hanamkonda (P&M), Warangal Urban District.
4. The Chairman and Managing Director, TSNPDCL.
H.No.2-5-31/2, Corporate Office, Vidyuth Bhavan, Nakallagutta, Hanamkonda (P&M), Warangal District. .....Appellants/Opposite Parties And Smt.Parne Vasantha, W/o Late Papi Reddy, Age : 47 years, Occ.: Household, R/o H.No.3-102, Mecherajpalli (V & P), Nellikuduru (M), Warangal District .....Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Parties: M/s Zakir Ali Danish Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant : Sri Kunamalla Karunkar 2 QUORAM :
HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN, IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER-JUDICIAL WEDNESDAY, THE 24 th DAY OF JULY TW O THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR ******* Order : (HON'BLE SRI V.V.SESHUBABU, MEMBER-JUDICIAL)
1. The Appeal No.631/2019 is filed U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 by the complainant seeking enhancement of the compensation with enhanced interest.
2. The Appeal No.637/2019 is filed U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 by the opposite parties, aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, Warangal, dated 26.09.2019 in CC 116/2018 where under, the opposite parties jointly and severally made liable to deposit in the Commission below a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards ex-gratia and to pay Rs.4,40,000/- towards compensation and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and legal expenses within one month.
3. The brief averments of the complaint in CC116/2018 are that Mr.Papi Reddy, herein after will be called as the deceased is the husband of the complainant and owner of agriculture electric power supply connection bearing No.SC 992/Agl and regularly paying the power charges; that on 16.07.2016 morning the deceased along with his son P.Srikanth Reddy, went to their agricultural field to plough the same; that having observed the electric wires hanging near to the ground due to heavy rains in the last night, the deceased was setting the electric wires in a proper manner around 09:45 hours; that he sustained electric shock;
that the opposite parties are having knowledge about electric wires hanging near to the ground; that the son of the deceased raised cries and with the help of neighbours shifted in an auto to Thoroor Hospital and on the way met with the death.; that a complaint was given to the police, Nellikuduru on 16.07.2016, who registered a case in crime No.84/2016 u/s 174 Cr.P.C., and conducted 3 panchanama and subjected the dead body for Post mortem examination etc., that doctors opined that the death occurred due to electrocution; that the deceased was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum and his family members are dependents on him; that the deceased would have survived another 20 years, by earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum; that the complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties on 02.09.2017 with a demand to pay compensation and ex-gratia, but there was no response, hence, the complaint.
4. The brief averments of the written version of the opposite party as adopted by opposite party No.2 to 4 are that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or under law; that on 16.07.2016 at 09:45 hours, when the deceased was attending the work in the field, suddenly the service wire fell on him and when he tried to set right the same, to place on the wooden pole got electrocuted as the insulation of the wire failed and died on the spot; that the complainant is put to strict to proof of all the averments made in the complaint except those that are admitted; that the opposite parties sanctioned ex-gratia amount of Rs.4,00,000/- after receiving the documents but, the complainant and her legal heirs not came forward to receive the amounts; that the accident occurred due to failure of insulation of service wire pertains to 5HP agriculture motor; that it is duty of the Consumer to properly maintain the service wire. With this, requested to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5. Before the District Commission, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit as PW1 and Ex.A1 to A15 are marked on her behalf. One Sri Damera Swadesh Kumar, Addl. Asst. Engineer, of the opposite party No.1 filed evidence affidavit and marked Ex.B1 to B8. Written arguments are filed by the opposite parties.
6. The Commission below, settled the following points for discussion viz.:
Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Parties?
Whether the complainant is entitled for the claim as prayed for? If so, to what relief?4
7. Having heard both sides, the Commission below basing on the material available on record passed the order as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the complainant filed the appeal No.631/2019 with the following grounds:
The order of the Commission below is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The Commission below ought to have granted interest on ex-gratia amount @ 12% per annum till the date of payment.
The Commission below ought to have fixed the multiplier at 13, instead of 11 and it should have granted Rs.50,000/- towards funeral expenses, loss of consortium etc., besides loss of estate.
With these grounds and others that will be urged at the time of arguments requested to set aside the order of the Commission below and award the amounts as prayed for in the complaint.
8. Aggrieved by the orders of the Commission below, the opposite parties filed the FA No.637/2019 with the following grounds:
The order of the Commission below is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. The Commission below passed the award for Rs.8,90,000/- is not sustainable under law. The Commission ought to have observed that the deceased died due to his own negligence. The Commission below erred in coming to the conclusion the yearly income of the deceased at Rs.60,000/- per annum.
With these grounds and others that will be urged at the time of arguments requested to set aside the order of the Commission below and to allow the appeal with costs.5
9. Now the points for determination in the appeal are :
(1) W hether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
(2) W hether the impugned order is sustainable under law? (3) Relief?
10. Heard the arguments on both sides. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted a memo giving the details of the legal heirs of the deceased besides the appellant. For the sake of the convenience the parties will be addressed as they arrayed in the impugned order.
11. POINTS 1 to 3: The death of the consumer Mr.Papi Reddy, who is the husband of PW1 due to electrocution sustained in his agricultural field, is an undisputed fact. Admitted facts need not be proved. It is also to be observed the Respondents/opposite parties/defendants are permitted to take contradictory pleas, but not the Petitioner/complainant/Plaintiff. As per the pleadings in the complaint the deceased along with his son went to their agricultural field on 16.07.2016 in the morning to plough the lands; that due to heavy rain in the last night, the electric wires were hanging near the ground and the deceased attempted to set right the electric lines and in that process sustained electric shock. This itself is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion, the negligence of the deceased. When electric wires were hanging near the ground, the deceased would have called for the electricity authorities instead of handling them by himself. The arguments of the complainant counsel that the electricity authorities who are having knowledge about electric wires hanging near the ground failed to appear to set them right, which amounts to deficiency of service. It is not the contention of the complainant that the electric wires were hanging near the ground from several days and despite their information, the electricity authorities failed to turn up to arrange the lines in a safe manner. Due to heavy rains as mentioned in the complaint and due to gales there is every opportunity for the electric lines fallen on the ground or coming near to the ground. It is too much to impute knowledge of these facts to the electricity authorities.
612. The contention of complainant counsel that the version of opposite parties as mentioned in the written version that the electric wires suddenly fell down on deceased or on the ground and due to improper insulation of such wires, the deceased sustained shock while properly arranging the lines on a wooden pole etc., shows the negligence of the electricity authorities is also cannot be accepted. It is clearly mentioned in the written version that the maintenance of service wire shall be attended by consumer only and department has no role to play in it. There is considerable force in the above argument of the opposite parties. Added to the same, there is no eye witness to the sudden fall of electric wire on the deceased. At the same time there is an eye witness in the form of son of deceased, (as per the complaint) that the deceased meddled with the electric wires hanging near to the ground. So, we are of the emphatic view that there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.
13. It is clearly mentioned in the written version that the electricity department offered an ex-gratia amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to the legal heirs of the deceased, but they have not come forward to receive the same. So, we are of the view that a direction can be given to the opposite parties to pay the ex-gratia amount to the complainant and other legal heirs of the deceased. The Commission below committed an error while awarding the compensation because when once it granted the award by following the Motor Vehicles Act and basing on the related case law, it should not have awarded ex-gratia. The ex-gratia will be given only when there was no claim or no other amount is given to the members of the deceased or any injured. The points are answered accordingly.
14. In the result, the FA 631/2019 is dismissed without costs and at the same time FA 637/2019 is partly allowed and partly dismissed by modifying the impugned order, dated 26.09.2019 in CC 116/2018, of District Commission, Warangal, by directing the opposite parties with joint and se veral liability to pay ex-gratia amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the 16.07.2016 till the date of actual payment. Time for compliance is 7 30 days. The Appellant/complainant is entitled for Rs.2,50,000/- and the children of the deceased by name Parne Srikanth, Parne Prashanth, who are the sons and daughter Parupati Srilatha, with each Rs.50,000/- along with interest on their respective shares.
The Appellant/complainant is permitted to withdraw the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made by the opposite party while preferring the appeal along with accrued interest, after the lapse of revision time.
Sd/- Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT M EM BER-J
Dt: 24.07.2024
AD*