National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power ... vs Janni Suramma & 2 Ors. on 19 November, 2015
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 3305 OF 2012 (Against the Order dated 16/07/2012 in Appeal No. 188/2011 of the State Commission Andhra Pradesh) 1. ANDHRA PRADESH EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION CO. LTD. (APEPDCL) Rep By:- (Through its Superintending Engineer, Operation Dasannapeta) Vizianagaram A.P ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. JANNI SURAMMA & 2 ORS. Village Gadaba Boddavalasa
Kothavalasa Panchyat
Saluru Line nad Mandal, Vizianagaram A.P 2. Janni Polamma, D/o Janni Late Somulu Village Gadaba Boddavalasa Kothavalasa Panchyat Saluru Line nad Mandal, Vizianagaram A.P 3. Janni Savitri, D/o Janni late Somulu Village Gadaba Boddavalasa Kothavalasa Panchyat Saluru Line nad Mandal, Vizianagaram A.P ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Shri Sunil Kumar Ojha, Adv. For the Respondent : Exparte
Dated : 19 Nov 2015 ORDER
Pronounced on 19th November, 2015
ORDER
PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This Revision Petition has been filed by petitioner against order dated 16.7.2012 passed by State Commission in FA No. 188 of 2011- Superintending Engineer, Operations, APEPDCL & Ors. Vs. Smt. Janni Suramma & Ors.; by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint was upheld.
Brief facts of the case are that complainant No. 1/ Respondent No. 1's husband and complainant No. 2 & 3/Respondent No. 2 & 3's father-Janni Somulu, residents of Gadaba Boddavalasa Village, Kothavalasa Panchayat, Salur line and Mandal, Vizinagaram District, went outside the village for taking firewood by cutting the firewood at Devivani Mango topes, Janavarivalasa. Due to hi-tension live electrical wires passing with low level in the said mango garden, deceased accidentally touched the said wire and he was electrocuted and died on the spot. Report was lodged with Police and proceedings under Section 174 Cr.PC were drawn. Deceased was earning Rs. 200/- per day in the village. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party(s), complainants filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite Party(s) resisted complaint denying allegations and further submitted that complainants are not 'consumers' and no cause of action arose against them. It was further submitted that earlier complaint filed by complainant was dismissed as withdrawn and without any valid reason, this complaint has been filed which may be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay Rs. 1,69,000/- with 9% p.a. interest and further directed to pay cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal filed by Opposite Party was partly allowed by Learned State Commission vide impugned order and compensation was reduced to Rs. 1,30,000/- against which this revision petition has been filed.
None appeared for respondents and were proceeded exparte.
Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused record as well as written submissions submitted by respondents.
Learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that deceased does not fall within the purview of 'consumer' even then Learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint and Learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal partly, hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside.
It is admitted case of the complainant that deceased- Janni Somulu went outside the village for taking firewood by cutting firewood at Devivani Mango topes, Janavarivalasa and due to hi-tension electrical live wires passing at low level, deceased accidentally touched said wire and died on the spot.
Learned Counsel for petitioners has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in III (1994) CPJ 50 (NC)- Shankar Sitaram Jadhav Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, in which it was observed that complainant's son who was electrocuted and died during providing help to someone else who had touched live electrical wire on the public road does not fall within the purview of 'consumer' as line which got snapped was not the supply line to complainant's residence but was general transmission line. In the case in hand, admittedly, complainant went outside the village for cutting firewood and accidentally touched hi-tension live electrical wire and died on the spot and there is nothing on record to prove that this line was near deceased's residence or supply to deceased's residence was provided by this line and in such circumstances, deceased does not fall within the purview of 'consumer'. Learned State Commission has placed reliance on judgment of this Commission in IV (2008) CPJ 139 (NC)- C.G.M., P&O, NPDCL & Ors. Vs. Koppu Duddarajam & Anr.; in which order allowing compensation was upheld as live hi-tension wire fell on a farmer who was sitting in front of verandah of Gram Panchayat office alongwith two other persons who died due to electrocution. Aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case because in the aforesaid case, deceased had every right to sit in front of Gram Panchayat office and Panchayat office was using electricity for its office and street lights as villagers paid tax to Village Panchayat and paid consumption charges to the electricity Company. On the other hand, in the present case, deceased went outside the village for cutting firewood and touched hi-tension live wire and was electrocuted. In C.G.M., P&O, NPDCL (supra) case, earlier judgment of three Member bench in Shankar Sitaram Jadhav (supra) was not considered which has similarity to the facts of this case.
In the light of Shankar Sitaram Jadhav's case, deceased Janni Somulu does not fall within the purview of 'consumer' and complaint filed by complainants was not maintainable before Consumer Fora and they should have approached other appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances and impugned order is liable to set aside.
Consequently, revision petition filed by petitioners is allowed and order dated 16.7.2012 passed by Learned State Commission in FA No. 188 of 2011- Superintending Engineer, Operations, APEPDCL & Ors. Vs. Smt. Janni Suramma & Ors., and order of District Forum dated 25.10.2010 passed in Complaint No. 97/2010- Smt. Janni Suramma & Ors. VS. Superintending Engineer, Operations, APEPDCL & Ors., is set aside and complaint stands dismissed with liberty to respondents to approach appropriate authority for redressal of their grievances.
-sd/-
......................J K.S. CHAUDHARI PRESIDING MEMBER