IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN

No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020

consumer case(CC) No. CC/1570/2008

Mastigowda
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

The Managing Director, Bangalore Electricity Supply Co.,
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

Date of Filing:14.07.2008 Date of Order:16.03.2009 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2009 PRESENT Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.

COMPLAINT NO: 1570 OF 2008 Mastigowda S/o. Late Chikkegowda R/at Ramakrishna Road Sir M.V. Extension Hoskote, Bangalore (R) District Present Address: Thavarekere Village Thoremavanahalli Post Thuruvekere Taluk Tumkur District Complainant

V/S

The General Manager Corporate Office Bangalore Electricity Supply Co. K.R. Circle, Bangalore Opposite Party ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale



This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The facts of the case are that complainant’s wife Smt. Sarojamma died on 08.09.2000 at about 8.00 a.m. due to electrocution while taking bath. The owner of the house where the complainant and his family members are living, has built six houses, three houses in each floor. The complainant and his family were living in one of the three houses of the first floor as tenant. Sub Inspector of Hoskote Police Station registered the case as an accidental death due to electrocution. It is the case of the complainant that his wife died due to negligence of the KPTCL Authorities as the six houses built in the building which consists of only one grounding pit instead of providing independent grounding pit to each house. This type of accident could not have happened if KPTCL authorities have taken necessary care. Hence, KPTCL authorities are liable to pay compensation to the victims / customers. The complainant has prayed Rs. 6,20,000/- as compensation.



2. Notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate. Defence version filed stating that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opposite party has to provide one grounding at the meter board. Opposite party has taken necessary care at the time of servicing the house and main grounding was provided properly at meter board since it is a common service to all such houses. There is no negligence on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is not liable to pay any compensation. Complainant has not made owner of the house as a party. Complaint is barred by limitation and hence, not maintainable. Therefore, opposite party requested to dismiss the complaint.



3. Affidavit evidences are filed.



4. Arguments are heard.



5. The points for consideration are: “1. Whether the complaint is barred by time? 2. Whether the owner of the house is also necessary party? 3. Whether the complaint is maintainable?”


REASONS


6. Admittedly the complainant’s wife Smt. Sarojamma unfortunately died on 08.09.2000 due to electrocution while taking bath. The complaint has been filed before this forum on 14.07.2008 after more than 7 years of the incident. Under section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 period of limitation is mentioned for filing complaint. Under this section the District Forum, State Commission or National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within 2 years from the date of cause of action has arisen. In this case admittedly, the unfortunate incident has taken place on 08.09.2000 and on that date the cause of action has arisen to the party to file complaint or suit against the opposite party. From that date within 2 years the complaint could have been filed for claiming compensation for any negligence etc. But, unfortunately, the complainant having waited for about 8 years had filed the complaint with an inordinate delay without there being not assigning reasons for such inordinate delay.

Therefore, this complaint is hopelessly barred by time and deserves to be dismissed on the point of limitation itself. Secondly, the complainant was a tenant in the house. The owner of the house has not been made party for the present proceedings. This is also one of the defect in the complaint. However, it is unnecessary to discuss all these things. The complainant has written letter on 25.07.2001 for the first time. The notice was sent to Principal Secretary to Government, Department of Energy. This notice will not extend the period of limitation for filing the complaint before this forum. We have got great sympathy towards the death of Smt. Sarojamma due to electrocution. But we are unable to entertain the complaint. Law will not protect those who are sleeping over their rights for so many years. The complainant could have taken prompt steps for filing Civil Suit or complaint before the fora claiming compensation within the period of limitation provided in law. The only remedy or hope for the complainant is to approach the Hon’ble Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka for granting some relief or compensation out of Chief Minister’s Relief Fund. I hope and trust that the Government of Karnataka may take a favourable decision if complainant makes representation for granting some relief or compensation. With this observation the complaint deserves to be dismissed since it is not maintainable before this fora. In the result I proceed to pass the following: ORDER 7. The Complaint is dismissed.