D. Venkata Muni,

S/o. Ganga Raju,

Hindu, aged about 48 years,

D.No.5-85, Rajakula colony,

Oteru Village,

Tiruchanoor Post,

Tirupati Rural Mandal,

Chittoor District. … Complainant



vs



1. V.Kuppaiah,

S/o. Vajravelu,

R/o. Oteru fields,

Tanapalle Road,

Near Tar Mixing Plat,

V.P.Agraharam Panchayat,

Tirupati Rural Mandal,

Chittoor District.



2. The Inspector,

Anti Power Theft Squad,

Bhavani Nagar,

Tirupati,

Chittoor District.



3. The Chairman/ CMD,

Southern Power Distribution Co. Ltd.,

Bairagipatteda,

Near Srinivasa Kalyana Mandapam,

Tirupati.



4. The Superintendent Engineer,

A.P.Transco,

Bhavani Nagar,

Tirupati



5. The Asst. Engineer (O & M),

A.P.Transco,

Tiruchanoor Sub-Station,

Tiruchanoor,

Tirupati Rural Mandal,

Chittoor District.

6. The Sub-Engineer,

C.C.O.Section,

A.P.S.P.D.C.L,

Tiruchanoor,

Tirupati Rural Mandal,

Chittoor District.



7. The Line-Man,

By name P.Surendra Babu,

C.C.O. Section,

A.P.S.P.D.C.L.,

Tiruchanoor,

Tirupati Rural Mandal,

Chittoor District. … Opposite parties.

This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 18.06.09 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.K.All Uddin, counsel for the complainant and Sri.Dama Subbaiah, counsel for the opposite parties 2 to 7, and opposite party No.1 remained exparte, and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:-





ORDER



This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, to pass an order directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages and to pay the costs of the complaint to the complainant.

2. The averments of the complaint in brief are :- The complainant is the only parent of deceased D.Rekha, aged 12 years. The deceased was studying 6th class in Government High School, Oteru. The complainant’s wife died long back. Since then the deceased was supporting the complainant to make the house. On 05.05.2006 the deceased brought break-fast to her father at Oteru fields. After the break-fast the deceased got some petty cash from the complainant and approached the nearby petty shop to buy some eatables. On the way she had to cross the fenced wire, which is around the fields of the petty shop owner by name Turaka Bhaskar.


In the course of crossing, the deceased accidentally touched the fenced wire as a result she was subjected to electrocution and fell there itself. On seeing the incident, the complainant along with other fellow men rushed to the spot and separated the deceased from electrocuted fence wire using his towel as a shield and found that she was dead. The complainant reported the matter to the SHO, Tiruchanoor Police Station, who registered the same as Crime No.61/2006 against opposite party No.1 and arrested him for the offence punishable under Section-304(A) of IPC and the case is pending before 3rd Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The surrounding people including the complainant and the petty shop owner many times reported to opposite parties 2 to 7 about power theft at the house of opposite party No.1 and also about the touching of stray wire from the iron power pole to the fencing wire.


The petty shop owner made oral reports to opposite parties 2 to 7 to replace the iron poles with cement poles or to take action that the stray wire of the electric iron pole may not touch the fencing. Inspite of receiving many reports about illegal power connection / power theft by opposite party No.1 and request to replace the iron poles with cement poles or to take action that the stray wire of the electric iron pole may not touch the fencing the opposite parties 2 to 7 gave a deaf ear leaving the public to their fate. Because of their gross negligence towards the public, the complainant’s only daughter died. Due to the said incident, the complainant suffered un-accountable mental shock and agony.


The complainant got issued legal notice calling upon opposite parties 1 to 7 to pay damages of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony, pain, suffering and loss of love and affection. The opposite party No.1 though residing at the same address evaded to receive the notice by managing the post-man. The opposite parties 2 to 7 received the notice, but there is no response from them. The incident occurred only due to the negligence and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 7 towards the complainant. Hence the complaint.

3. The opposite party No.1, having received the notice, remained exparte.

4. The opposite parties 2 to 7 resisted the complaint. In the written version filed on behalf of opposite party No.5, adopted by opposite parties 2,3,4, 6 and 7, while denying the allegations made in the complaint, it is inter alia stated that the complainant had not hired any services from APSPDCL under which opposite parties 2 to 7 are employees. The complainant did not allege any negligence on the part of APSPDCL. The opposite parties 2 to 7 are in no way responsible for the alleged death of the complainant’s daughter. Viewed from any angle, the complainant will not come within the definition of the “Consumer” as defined in Section-2(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.


The S.H.O. after enquiring the matter, had not made any allegations against APSPDCL authorities. The opposite parties are not liable to pay any amount much less Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages on account of the death of his daughter. There is no cause of action against opposite parties 2 to 7 and the complaint is not sustainable and is liable to be dismissed inlimine. The complaint is misconceived and devoid of any merits. The complaint may be dismissed against opposite parties 2 to 7 with costs.

5. In support of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit. The complainant also filed 7 documents, which are marked as Exs. A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is xerox copy of FIR in Cr.No.61/2006 under Section-304(A) of IPC of P.S. Tiruchanoor. Ex.A2 is xerox copy of charge sheet in Cr.No.61/2006 filed in the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati. Ex.A3 is xerox copy of Postmortem certificate issued by the Department of Forensic Medicine, S.V.Medical College, Tirupati. Ex.A4 is office copy of legal notice dt:18.08.2008 got issued by the complainant to the opposite parties 1 to 7. Ex.A5 is postal acknowledgements, 6 in number, of opposite parties 2 to 7 for Ex.A4 legal notice. Ex.A6 is returned cover sent to opposite party No.1. Ex.A7 is Electricity Bill No.5522302002369 filed by the complainant.

6. In support of the case set up in the written version, the opposite party No.5 filed his affidavit. No documents are, however, filed on behalf of opposite parties 2 to 7.

7. On behalf of the complainant and opposite parties 2 to 7 written arguments were filed and we have heard the oral arguments of counsel of both sides.

8. On the basis of pleadings of both sides, the points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Section-2(1)(d) of C.P.Act 1986?

2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties towards the complainant?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed? If so, to what extent?

4. To what result?

9. Point No.1:- The contention of the opposite parties 2 to 7 is that the complainant had not hired the services of APSPDCL under which they are employees and hence the complainant will not come within the definition of consumer as defined in Section-2(1)(d) of C.P.Act 1986. This contention is not tenable. The complainant is a consumer of electricity having domestic connection to his family house.


The service connection to the family house of the complainant is in the name of his father D.Ganga Raju. Ex.A7 electricity consumption charges bill / notice establishes the said fact. In a recent decision reported in C.G.M., P & O, NPDCL and Others Vs. Koppu Duddarajam and Another - 2009 CTJ 643, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the villagers pay taxes to the Village Panchayat for various facilities provided to them and electricity charges to electricity supply company and they are, therefore, consumers under the Consumer Protection Act. Hence, we reject the plea of opposite parties 2 to 7 that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section-2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. This point is accordingly answered against the opposite parties 2 to 7.

10. Point No.2:- The brief facts of the case are:- On 05.05.2006 the complainant was working in a sand quarry near Oteru village. The complainant’s minor daughter Rekha, aged about 12 years, brought breakfast to the complainant to the work place. After the complainant completed breakfast he gave some petty cash to his daughter. The complainant’s daughter in order to purchase some eatables proceeded to the petty shop of one Bhaskar. To reach the shop of Bhaskar she had to cross the fenced wire laid around the field of the said Bhaskar. While crossing, the complainant’s daughter Rekha accidentally touched the fenced wire, as a result of which, she was subjected to electrocution and fell there itself.


On seeing the same, the complainant along with others rushed to the spot and separated his daughter from electrocuted fence wire using his towel and found that his daughter dead. The complainant lodged complaint before Tiruchanoor police. Tiruchanoor police registered the complaint as case in Crime.No.61/2006 dt:05.05.2006 for the offence under Section-304(A) IPC against one V.Kuppaiah, the opposite party No.1 and issued the original of Ex.A1 F.I.R.


The S.I. of Police, Tiruchanoor Police Station filed charge-sheet against opposite party No.1 for the offence punishable under Section-304(A) IPC. As seen from Ex.A1 F.I.R and Ex.A2 charge-sheet, as V.Kuppaiah, opposite party No.1 has no electricity connection to his hut near Swarnamukhi River, he took electric connection to his hut illegally from the main line with an old telephone wire through a wooden hook and tightened some portion of the wire to a iron clamp of electric pole. As some plastic portion of the wire was cut, power passed through the cut portion of the cable to the iron clamp and from which to the iron fencing of Turaka Bhaskar. As the deceased Rekha touched the iron fencing she was electrocuted and died due to electric shock. The Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, S.V.Medical College, Tirupati, who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased D.Rekha opined that the death of the deceased was due to electrical shock. Ex.A3 is xerox copy of postmortem report.


The complainant got issued the original of Ex.A4 legal notice to all the opposite parties alleging that due to gross negligence on the part of opposite parties 2 to 7 his daughter died and calling upon the opposite parties 1 to 7 to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The opposite parties 2 to 7 received the legal notice. Ex.A5 is the bunch of postal acknowledgements, 6 in number, of opposite parties 2 to 7 for Ex.A4 notice. The notice sent to opposite party No.1 was returned. Ex.A6 is the returned cover of opposite party No.1. As there was no response from the opposite parties 2 to 7, the complainant filed the complaint on 31.10.2008.

11. The complainant did not impute any act of negligence to opposite parties 2 to 7 in his complaint given to police. In the charge-sheet the police also did not make any allegations against the APSPDCL. The contention of the counsel for opposite parties 2 to 7 is that opposite parties 2 to 7 are in no way responsible for the accidental death of complainant’s daughter and as there is no proof to show that the complainant’s daughter died due to any negligence or deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 2 to 7, they are not liable to pay any compensation.


On the other hand, the contention of the counsel for complainant is that opposite parties 2 to 7, who have the responsibility to supply the electricity energy in a particular locality, have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy and as the opposite parties 2 to 7 failed in their duty in removing the illegal connection taken by V.Kuppaiah or in taking steps to prevent passing of electricity to the fencing wire they committed gross negligence and deficiency in service towards the public in general and in particular towards the complainant and hence they are liable to pay compensation. In this connection he placed reliance in the decisions reported in 2002(2) ALD 4, 2002 III CPJ 269 and 2005(1) CPJ 778. In M.P.Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar – 2002(2) ALD 4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:

“It is an admitted fact that the responsibility to supply electric energy in the particular locality was statutorily conferred on the Board. If the energy so transmitted causes injury or death of a human being, who gets unknowingly trapped into if the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier of the electric energy. So long as the voltage of electricity transmitted through the wires is potentially of dangerous dimension the managers of its supply have the added duty to take all safety measures to prevent escape of such energy or to see that the wire snapped would not remain live on the road as users of such road would be under peril.


It is no defence on the part of the management of the Board that somebody committed mischief by siphoning such energy of his private property and that the electrocution was from such diverted line. It is the look out of the managers of the supply system to prevent such pilferage by installing necessary devices. At any rate, if any live wire got snapped and fell on the public road the electric current thereon should automatically have been disrupted. Authorities manning such dangerous commodities have extra duty to chalk out measures to prevent such mishaps.



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 cast on such person is known, in law, as “strict liability”.



In Karnataka Electricity Board, now known as Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd. Vs. Smt. Sharavva – III (2002) CPJ 269, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that where power line loose, hung very low, precariously connected to poles on either side and death due to electrocution, Electricity Board liable to pay compensation with interest. In N.Kunchi Babu Vs. A.P.Transco - I (2005) CPJ 778, the Hon’ble A.P.State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that where on account of electricity wires touching balcony of complainant’s house and failure to maintain minimum distance as per the norms of Electricity Act and minor daughter of the complainant electrocuted, became physically disabled, there is deficiency on the part of A.P.Transco and are liable to pay compensation and medical expenses.

12. In the present case, the opposite parties 2 to 7 failed to take steps to remove the illegal electricity connection taken by V.Kuppaiah. It is impossible to believe that Kuppaiah took illegal electricity connection to his hut without the knowledge of opposite parties 5 to 7. In the complaint it is alleged that the surrounding people including the complainant and petty shop owner many times reported to opposite parties 2 to 7 about power theft at the house of opposite party No.1 and also about the touching of said wire from the iron power pole to the fencing wire and that though many times the petty shop owner made oral representations to opposite parties 2 to 7 to replace the iron poles with cement poles no action was taken.


Though there is no proof to the effect that the complainant and the petty shop owner reported to opposite parties 2 to 7 about opposite party No.1 committing theft of electricity and requesting to replace the iron poles with cement poles, it cannot be believed that atleast opposite parties 5 to 7 have no knowledge about theft of electricity by opposite party No.1 and power is passing to the iron fencing through the illegal connection.

13. From the foregoing discussion, we find that there is deficiency in service on part of opposite parties 2 to 7 towards the complainant. It cannot be said that opposite party No.1 committed any deficiency in service towards the complainant. This point is accordingly answered in favour of the complainant and against opposite parties 2 to 7.

14. Point No.3:- In view of our finding on point No.2, the complainant is entitled to claim compensation from opposite party 2 to 7 for the death of his daughter due to electrocution. The complainant claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. In our view, it is just and reasonable to award compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.1,500/- towards costs of the complaint. This point is accordingly answered.

15. Point No.4:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 2 to 7 to pay Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1,500/- towards costs of the complaint to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of order, failing which the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- will attract interest at 9% per annum.

The complaint against opposite party No.1 is dismissed, but without costs.