State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. The Addl. Assistant Engineer And ... vs Jammu Gurayya S/O.Late Rajulu on 15 May, 2014
BEFORE THE CIRCUIT BENCH A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: VISAKHAPATNAM F.A.No.142 OF 2014 AGAINST C.C.No.77 OF 2013 DISTRICT FORUM SRIKAKULAM Between: 1. The Addl. Assistant Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Distribution II, Srikakulam Town and District. 2. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation A.P.E.P.D.CL of A.P.Srikakulam Town & District. 3. Divisional Engineer, Operation Circle A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Srikakulam Town and District. 4. Superintending Engineer, A.P.E.P.D.C.L., Srikakulam. 5. The Chairman & ManagingDirector APEPDCL, Operation,PNT Colony Seethammadhara Visakhapatnam. Appellants/opposite parties AND Jammu Gurayya S/o.late Rajulu Hindu, aged 59 years, Door No.1-24-104, Bavajinagar Theta Balaga Colony, Srikakulam Town and District. Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellants M/s. P.Anand Seshu Counsel for the Respondents M/s K.V.Subrahmanyam Narsu QUORUM: SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HONBLE MEMBER.
AND SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HONBLE MEMBER.
THURSDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN Order ( Per Sri T.Ashok Kumar, Honble Member.) ***
1. This is an appeal preferred by the opposite parties against the order in C.C.No.77/2013 dated 26-6-2013 on the file of District Forum, Srikakulam. For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder:
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
3. The complainant is a resident of Srikakulam town and owner of three buffaloes and one calf. He and his family members are eking out their livelihood on the buffaloes which were giving 18 litres milk a day and thus they were getting an income of `400/- per day after incurring expenditure to maintain the said buffaloes. On 12-8-2012 at about 12 noon the complainant took his three buffaloes and calf to to Sri Sai Baba Temple in Sivaramanagar of A.S.N.colony in Chapuram Panchayat, Srikakulam locality Rural for gazing and at about 1.00 p.m and at the sand the buffaloes and calf got electrocuted near electricity transformer and died on the spot. One Komburu Mohana Rao and Jami Srikanth witnessed the incident and the complainant gave a police report and marked copies to the opposite parties. The Tahsildar, Srikakulam gave confirmation certificate vide R.C.No.680/2012 dated 27-8-2012 certifying that the three buffaloes and calf died due to electrical shock and the Veterinary Assistant also issued death certificate and valuation certificate on 13-8-2012 certifying that one non descriptive buffalo worth `30,000/-, two Murrah buffaloes worth Rs.80,000/- and one Murrah heifer calf worth `10,000/- belonging to the complainant died due to electrical shock. Thereafter after thorough investigation, the opposite parties also confirmed that the above buffaloes died to electrical shock and gave a letter dated 01-12-2012 mentioning that they sanctioned `12,000/- to each buffalo and as the sanctioned amount is very meagre, the complainant did not accept it because the value of the said buffaloes and calf is `2 lakhs for which the opposite parties stated that they will arrange the remaining amount within a short period but failed to do so. The complainant alleged that the due to the negligence and lack of proper care in maintaining the electrical live wires by the opposite parties, he and his family members lost their source of income on account of the sudden death of the buffaloes and thus alleges deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of `2,00,000/- being the value of the deceased buffaloes with interest at 24% p.a. on the amount of `2 lakhs from the date of incident i.e. 12-8-2012 till the date of realization together with compensation of `50,000/-, costs of `10,000/- and advocate fee of `5000/-.
4. Opposite party No.1 filed counter which was adopted by opposite parties 2 to 5 resisting the complaint. The opposite parties allege that on 12-8-2012 at about 10-00 hr, they received a Fuse off call at D2 Srikakulam section office stating that there is no power supply as on 22 171/C1 and SS 171/C2 locations.
Immediately the line man rushed to the spot and identified that due to cutting of coconut branches by one of the residents of plot No.16, the service wire of Service No.21849 was cut causing all the LT lines short circulated and all the 3 Nos. HG fuses of the transformer of SS 172 blown off and the same were rectified and restored. Thereafter around 13-00 Hrs a phone call was received stating that 2 Nos. She buffalos and 1 calf electrocuted near the Transformer SS 172. The spot was immediately visited by the Addl.Asst. Engineer, D2 Section Srikakulam and observed that the buffaloes were electrocuted. On detailed inspection it was observed that phase wire in A feeding cut towards outgoing side emanating to SS172/A1 and fell on the ground in vacant site in which the drain water from the surrounding dwelling deposited and while falling down the conductor touched the live jumper on cut point pole of SS 172/A1 and it was suspected that due to short circuit of all lines while clearing the coconut breaches, the joint on the Transformer LT line towards A feeding might have been weakened and subsequently after charging the feeder and loading, the conductor might have snapped causing the accident. The accident was reported to the concerned department officials vide Endt.No.ADE/O/SKL(T)/F Dkt./D.No.1378/12 dt.12-8-2012 and necessary documents such as Panchanama report, legal heir representation and ownership certificate, veterinary doctors report and death certificate etc., were submitted to higher authorities and an amount of `12,000/- was sanctioned and the same was informed to the owner of the deceased cattle but he did not turn up to accept the demand draft and the same was sent through registered post by letter dated 01-12-2012 but the D.D. was returned by the owner and no assurance was given for the amount as stated by the complainant and only the assured amount as per eligibility shall be arranged at the earliest. The opposite parties contended that even though the complainant lost his livelihood, the department can only act and sanction the amount as per eligibility and submitted that the cause of death of buffaloes is accident but not due to any negligence and submitted that there is no deficiency in service on their part. The opposite parties further contended that the complainant has to approach the civil court for claiming damages and not the consumer Forum and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5. Both sides filed affidavits reiterating their respective contentions. Exs.A1 to A9 and B1 to B5 were marked on their behalf. Having heard both sides, considering the material on record and written arguments of both sides, the District Forum vide impugned order allowed the complaint in part and directed the opposite parties to pay `10,000/- for one buffalo and `40,000/- for two buffaloes and `7000/-
for the calf together with costs of Rs.2,000/-.
6. Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the opposite parties preferred this appeal contending that the accident occurred due to cutting of coconut branches by one of the resident thereby the service wire was cut causing all the LT lines short circuited all the 3 numbers HG fuses of the transformer of SS 172 blown off and as a result the phase wire A feeding cut towards outgoing side emanating to SS 172/A1 fell on the ground in vacant site in which the drain water from the surrounding dwelling deposited. The opposite parties further contended that there is no negligence and per reports Exs.B1 and B2 and the higher authorities of the department considered the case of the complainant on humanitarian grounds and granted an amount of Rs.12,000/- towards ex-gratia and the same was intimated to the complainant but he did not turn up to receive the same and filed the C.C The opposite parties also relied on the decision of the Honble Apex court in 2005(6) SCC 156 followed by the Honble High Court in 2010(5) ALD 575 and submitted that there is no negligence on their behalf that they need an opportunity to lead evidence which aspect was not at all considered by the District Forum.
7. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated either in law or on facts?
8. There is no disputing that on 12.8.2012 at about 1.00 pm when the complainant took three buffaloes and calf for grazing near Sri Sai Baba Temple in Sivaramnagar, Chapuram Panchayat, Srikakulam they came into contact with electrical live wire which fell down from the pole and got electrocuted and as a result the buffaloes and calf died on the spot. The complainant filed complaint attributing the negligence on the opposite parties as they did not take care in not maintaining the electrical live wires properly. The opposite parties contended that during short circuit of all the lines while clearing the coconut branches, the joints on the transforms LT line towards A feeding night have been weakened and subsequently after charging the feeder and loading, the conductor might cut and fell on the ground and as the ground is covered with water and mud the mishap occurred even though the section fuse blown off on the transformer and in such a situation the she-buffaloes and a calf electrocuted.
9. The National Commission in Assistant Executive Engineer, Sub Division No.11, Karnataka State Electricity Board V. Neelakanta Gowda Siddanagouda Patel reported in 2002 (TLS) NCDRC 47 in R.P.No.37 of 2002 held that:
The complainant is a consumer and there is deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite parties in not providing safe electric current through the wires passing over the complainants field.
10. In a decision reported in 2002 (2) ALD 4 (SC) between M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar the Honble Supreme Court observed that :
Even assuming that all such measures have been adopted, a person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risk exposure to human life, is liable under law of torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person, irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of the managers of such undertakings. The basis of such liability is the foreseeable risk inherent in the very nature of such activity. The liability case on such person is known, in law, as strict liability.
It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e., the concept of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable hard could be avoided by taking reasonable precautions. If the defendant did all that which could be done for avoiding the harm he cannot be held liable when the action is based on any negligence attributed. But such consideration is not relevant in cases of strict liability where the defendant is held liable irrespective of whether he could have avoided the particular harm by taking precautions.
11. On analogy the said decision is helpful for the complainant to sustain his claim for loss of his buffaloes and calf which a property on account of negligence of opposite parties.
12. In view of the said decision of the Honble Apex court, the opposite party department is certainly liable to compensate the complainant in connection with the death of three she-buffaloes and a calf because the opposite parties were not vigilant over the such supply of high voltage and its consequences nor prevented the same by taking recourse. There is no dependable evidence from the side of the opposite party that they maintained lines and transformer all the time in perfect condition. The self-serving evidence affidavit of the opposite parties is not useful for the opposite parties in any manner. In such circumstances, an inference is drawn that on account of improper maintenance of electric wires , the live wires fell on the ground and the she-buffaloes and a calf died.
13. Regarding the quantum, the complainant claimed compensation of `2 lakhs being the value of deceased buffaloes with interest 24% per annum with compensation of `50,000/- and costs.
The Veterinary Surgeon after the death of the she-buffaloes and the calf conducted postmortem and he valued one non-descriptive buffalo at `30,000/-, two graded buffaloes at `80,000/- and heifer calf at `10,000/- and to that effect he issued certificate. Even though the Assistant Civil Surgeon gave valuation certificate, he did not clarify as on what basis he arrived at such a value. Therefore the same is not accepted. In its order, the District Forum has assessed the value of three she-buffaloes and a calf at `57,000/-
and there is no cross appeal from the complainant. In view of the above discussion we do not find any infirmity in the order of the District Forum. The appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed confirming the orders of the District Forum.
14. In the result the appeal is dismissed confirming the orders of the District Forum. The parties shall bear their own costs of the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.
Sd/-
MEMBER Sd/-
MEMBER Dt.15.05.2014 JM/ కె.ఎం.కె.*