State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
01. Misre Tukaram, Adilabad And One ... vs 01. The Asst. Engineer, Apnpdcl/A P ... on 10 December, 2013
A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD FA 233 of 2013 against CC 132/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Adilabad. Between : 01. Misre Tukaram, S/o Chinnanna, age 50 years, occ : Agriculture 02. Misre Suman Bai, W/o Tukaram age 45 years, Occ : house wife (Both all are Residents of Balepalli village Mandal Kowtala Dist. Adilabad .. Appellants/complainants And 01. The Asst. Engineer, APNPDCL/A P Transco Kowtala, Dist. Adilabad. 02. Divisional Engineer, APNPDCL Kagaznagar Division, Dist. Adilabad,. 03. The Superintendent Engineer, APNPDCL/AP Transco Adilabad .. Respondents/opp. Parties Counsel for the appellant ; M/s. T. Roshi Reddy Counsel for the Respondents ; Mr. P. Vinod Kumar. Coram : Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao Honble Incharge President Sri T. Ashok Kumar .. Honble Member
And Sri S. Bhujanga Rao.. Honble Member Tuesday, the Tenth Day of December Two Thousand Thirteen Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Honble Member ) ****
1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainants as against the orders dated 13.03.2013 in CC 132/2011 on the file of the District Consumer Forum, Adilabad whereby the said Forum dismissed the complaint . For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainants 1and 2 are the patents of one Misre Mohan aged 15 years, minor/student. On 5.6.2011, at about 14 hours the said Mohan was subjected to electrocution and died and it was so happened due to negligent service of the ops 1 to 3 as they did not maintain the electricity service properly to the consumer. Regarding the said death, a case in Cr. No. 49/2011 U/s174 Cr. P.C. was registered by police Kowtala. Inquest and postmortem etc were conducted. The deceased was hale and healthy and was a brilliant student and he had bright future. He was looking after the welfare of his parents and helping them in their agricultural operation. On account of untimely and sudden death of the deceased the life of the complainants became miserable and they also lost the love and affection. The said acts of the OP amount to deficiency in service and hence the complaint to direct the Ops to pay Rs.4 lakhs compensation together with interest @ 18% PA from the date of the death of the deceased till realization and costs of the complaint.
3. The third opposite party filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and Ops 1 and 2 adopted the same and denying the allegations made in the complaint and the gist of the counter is that on 5.6.2011 at about 15 hours while the deceased Mohan was inserting Cell phone charger into the socket suddenly got electrocuted and died on the spot. The electric wires in the house of the deceased are being maintained by the complainants and the electricity department is unconcerned with the internal wiring of the premises of the complainant. In fact, the deceased died on account of his own negligence and not due to any negligence or dis service on the part of the Ops and it was so revealed in an investigation got conducted by Ops and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Complainant no.1 and OP. 3 filed evidence affidavit reiterating their respective pleadings and Ex. A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B-1 is marked for the OPs.
5. Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum vide impugned order dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the said order the complainants filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the order of the District Forum is erroneous, and that even though the appellants were consumers the Forum failed to protect the right of the consumers and dismissed the complaint merely saying that there is no evidence to show that there was negligence and carelessness on the part of the Ops and that in fact the deceased died due to high voltage to the switch board at the time of his death while he was operating the switch board and that on account of installation of small transformer it was so happened. and that there are several decisions in favour of the complainants which were not considered in a right manner and that order of the District Forum is not sustainable either in law or on facts and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and consequently allow the complaint as prayed for.
7. Heard both sides with reference to their respective contentions in detail.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated either in law or on facts?
There is no dispute that the deceased Misre Mohan aged about 15 years student, who is the son of complainants and died on the spot while charging his cell phone in his house on 05.06.2011 at about 14/15 hours due to electrocution.
The grievance of the complainants is that due to carelessness and negligent acts of the officials of Ops the deceased was subjected for electrocution as they failed to maintain proper services and therefore the Ops are liable to pay compensation to the complainants on account of such accidental death and that the District Forum erroneously dismissed the complaint.
Whereas the contention of the Ops is that on the fateful day the deceased died due to electrocution while he was inserting the cell phone into socket and that the department has no concern with the internal wiring of the premises of the complainant and that due to own negligence of the deceased he died and that there was no negligence or carelessness or dis service on the part of Ops in maintaining the electrical lines and hence Ops are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainants and that the District Forum rightly dismissed the complaint. . None of the documents Ex.A1 to A6 whisper that on the date of death of the deceased there was high voltage in electricity supply in his house or vicinity of his house. The complainants did not establish with any other convincing evidence that their other electrical appliances in their house or in the houses of neighbourers were damaged on account of high voltage. Possibility of the deceased using inferior quality of cell phone charger cannot be ruled out. The complainants did not establish with any dependable evidence that small transformer was installed and also did not provide earth wires at the time of installing the transformer to the supply of the electricity to the villagers for the domestic purpose nor it was so pleaded in the complaint they even did not aver in the complaint that while the deceased was inserting the charger in the socket he was subjected for electrocution. In similar situation this Commission dismissal of the complaint was justified. Had the deceased was subjected to such an electrocution on account of snapping live electric wire outside of his house, the decisions cited by him reported in 2009 CJ 261 NC between CGM , P &0 NPDCPL and others Vs Koppu Rudrarajam and another 2011 CJ 1084 (NC) were helpful for them. In the said case, reported in 2011 CJ 1084 (NC ) there was dying declaration of minor attributing cause of fire to short circuit in electric supply and in such circumstances it was held that electricity board is not required to prove negligence of the respondent by adducing technical negligence in order to prove his case up to hilt. and 2005 (2) CPR 9 between Kunchibabu and another, the minimum distance of 4 feet was not maintained between electric pole and adjacent house and thus the electrocution had taken place on the balcony of the complainant therein and therefore it is not helpful for the complainant. In FA 315/2010 order dated 12.12.2011, the live wire fell on the roof and thus the deceased was subjected for electrocution. It is not so in this case as the deceased in this case died of electrocution when he was inserting the mobile charger in the socket inside the house. In the circumstances described supra, decision reported in 2001 TAC 31 SC between Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Association of Victims Uphaar Tragedy is also no way helpful for the complainants.
Ex.
B1 photo copy of preliminary report dt. 5.6.2011 of Asst. Divisional Engineer concerned reveals that the deceased while he was inserting cell phone charger into the socket suddenly got electrocuted and died on the spot. Copy of complaint of the complainant attached to Ex. A1 FIR also discloses that while the deceased was inserting charger of the cell phone into the socket accidentally he was subjected to electrocution and that they did not entertain any doubt as to in connection with the death of the deceased. The District Forum also assigning satisfactory reasons dismissed the complaint and therefore the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed confirming the order.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs.
I/c PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER DATED :
10.12.2013.