BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::

KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT

PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT

   SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER

                             M.V.R. SHARMA, B.A. MEMBER                              

Wednesday, 13^th January 2016

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 80 / 2015

1.  Pidugu Srinivasulu, S/o Late P. Ranganatham, aged about 67 years, Hindu,

     Judicial Department, but now working as Superintendent, PLAC at Kadapa.

2.  Pidugu Bhanupriya, D/o P. Srinivasulu, aged about 30 years, Hindu, House wife.     

3.  Pidugu Usha Rani, D/o  P. Srinivasulu, aged about 41 years, Hindu,

4.  Pidugu S.V. Murali Mohan, S/o P. Srinivasulu, aged about 38 years, Hindu,

5.  Pidugu Rajarajeswari, D/o P. Srinivasulu, aged about 46 years, Hindu,

     The complainants Nos.1 to 5 are residing in D.No. 17/563,

     Habifulla Street, Kadapa city & Post and Mandal,

     YSR District.                                                                 ….. Complainants.

Vs.

1.  The Superintendent of Engineer, Operation, APSPDCL,

     Near Collector’s Bungalow, Kadapa City & Post and Mandal,

     YSR District.    

2.   The Asst. Engineer, Operation, APSPDCL, North,

      Sub – Station, Kadapa City & Post & Mandal,

      YSR District.                                                          …..  Opposite parties.

This complaint is coming before us for final hearing on 08-01-2016 and perusing complaint and other material papers on record and on hearing the arguments of Sri J.V. subbarayudu, Advocate for complainant and Sri C.S. Riyazuddin, Advocate for Opposite party and the matter is having stood over for consideration this day, the Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

(Per Sri M.V.R. Sharma, Member),

1.             This Complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 requesting this forum to direct the Opposite parties:-

(a) To pay ₹, 2,00,000/- towards for medicines and extra nourishments transportation, special diet, attendant.  

(b) To pay ₹ 5,00,000/- towards loss of love and affections and mental agony of complainant Nos.1 to 5..  

(c) to pay ₹ 1,00,000/- for loss of consortium of 1^st complainant.

        (d) to pay ₹ 25,000/- for funeral expenses.

        (e) to pay ₹ 1,80,000/- towards loss of estate.

        (f)  to pay ₹ 2,00,000/- for loss of amenities of complainants 1 to 5.

2.             The averments of the complaint in brevity are that the complainants were residing in the D.No. 12/274, Pottisreeramulu Street, Kadapa town in 3^rd floor on rental basis.  On 29-12-2013 wife of the 1^st complainant namely Smt. P. Srilakshmi, while she was taking back towel from fixed nylon thread for being dried up cloths.  At that time the said towel was fallen on the L.T. lines these L.T. lines were passing adjacent to the complainants house which were not covered with plastic pipes, resulting that she was fell down on the floor and sustained several electric burns, overall of her right side as well as other parts of the body. 

3.             The complainants further stated that she was taken to Khaleel Nursing Home at Kadapa and taken treatment for 2 days as inpatient.   Due to serious condition of the patient as per advice of the hospital authorities for better treatment they shifted her from Kadapa to Tirupati and admitted in the Elite Private Hospital as inpatient and taken treatment 2 days and also shifted and taken treatment at SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati and at last she was succumbed to injuries on 13-01-2014 in the SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati. 

4.             The complainants also stated that the complainant No. 1, informed orally to the subordinates of the opposite party No. 2 (for short herein called as O.Ps) that the L.T. Lines which are passing through and adjacent to the house of the complainants to take precautionary steps i.e. affix of plastic pipes on the L.T. lines in several occasions.  This electrical mishap was occurred due to negligent act of O.P’s were not inspected L.T. Lines periodically.  So, it leads to deficiency of service of the opposite parties due to the electrical mishap was occurred.   The 1^st complainant who retired from service as Superintendent  in the Principal Junior Civil Judge Court at Kadapa and he claimed medical reimbursement for ₹ 22,853/- and the said claim was admitted by Hon’ble Principal District Judge, Kadapa after receiving the claim from RIMS Hospital after scrutiny for medical bills worth of ₹ 18,560/- and further the complainant No. 1 issued legal notice to Opposite parties dt. 23-12-2014 through his counsel the O.P.2 has given reply notice with false allegations.  Hence, this complaint. 

5.             The opposite parties 1 & 2 filed joint counter and stated that the complainants has affixed nylon thread was stitched and the same was hanging balcony and placing the wet of clothes for dried up on the wall and the same was taking back, which was fallen on the L.T. lines which was passing adjacent to the house of the complainant and his wife sustained shock and fell down is false.   The complainant itself not maintainable without police records i.e FIR, inquest report, P.M. report and charge sheet and he did not disclosed how the deceased was died due to the electrical shock without any document and that there is  no eye-witness whether she died with electrical live wires or interior wiring fault.  On that this opposite parties have no knowledge about the incident with regard to this incidents,  no report received from the complainant by this department.  These opposite parties are also stated that L.T. lines distance from the houses 6 feet’s away there is no possibility to stich hanging to wall and there is no provision as per electricity act and also state that there is no relationship as consumer to this Opposite parties and that the meter stands in the name of the some other person.  On that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence, the Hon’ble court may kindly pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. 

6.                     To prove his case the complainant filed an affidavit along with documents and got marked Exs. A1 to A7.  No documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.  No oral evidence has been let in by the parties.

7.             On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination. 

     i.     Whether the complainants are eligible for compensation as prayed by them?  

2. Whether there is negligence or deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
3. To what relief?

8.             Point Nos. 1 & 2. The learned counsel of the complainants contended that the deceased Smt. P. Srilakshmi, W/o complainant No. 1, sustained electrical burn injuries on 29-12-2013 while she was taking back towel which was fallen on the L.T. Line and the said L.T Line was passing through very adjacent to the complainants house and not maintained by the opposite parties properly by covering with plastic pipes or by taking other such safeguards. 

9.             Per contra learned counsel for opposite parties contended that the L.T. Lines are at a distance of 6 feets away from the houses and there is no possibility to fall the towel while taking back from nylon thread and also contended that the complainants not filed any complaint and police records i.e. FIR, inquest report, post mortem report and charge sheet on that the complainants did not disclosed, how the deceased died.  There is no eye-witness whether she died with electrical live wires or interior wiring fault. 

10.            There is considerable force in the contention of learned counsel for the opposite parties. The complainant not given any complaint to the opposite parties to prove that the deceased died due to L.T. line which passing adjacent to the complainant’s house and also not filed documents i.e. police records FIR, inquest report, P.M. report and charge sheet.  It may be noted that the complainants filed Exs. A1 to A7.   Exs. A1 and A2 shows that the deceased taken treatment in various hospital and Ex. A3 is the death certificate of Smt. Sri Lakshmi issued by SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupati and Ex. A4 reveals that the complainant got reimbursement of medical expenditure issued by the Hon’ble Principal District Court.  But the complainants did not placed any evidence to prove that the deceased died due to electrical shock while taking back towel which fallen on the L.T. lines and the L.T lines were passing through very adjacent to the complainants house, except their pleadings.  The complainants not filed necessary documents to prove their contentions and the deceased died due to electrical mishap and also the complainants no such things was brought to the notice of the opposite parties.

11.            Therefore, we hold that the complainants failed to prove the damages as pleaded, so as observed there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties are not liable to pay compensation to the complainants and the complaint is dismissed.  Accordingly the points 1 & 2 are answered against the complainants. 

12.            Point No. 3   In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs.

                Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum, this the 13^th January 2016

MEMBER                                     MEMBER                         PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined.

For Complainant    NIL                                       For Opposite parties :     NIL  

Exhibits marked for Complainant: -

Ex: A1         True Xerox copies issued by Dr. Khaleel  Nursing Home, Kadapa

                   Prescriptions, medical bills, discharge slip, diagnostic slip total copies

                   are 7 in all. 

Ex: A2         True Xerox copies issued by Elite hospital, Tirupathi, prescriptions, medical bills, etc., total copies are 7 in all

Ex: A3         True Xerox copy issued by S.V.R.R. G.G. Hospital, Tirupathi death certificate of Smt. P. Sri Lakshmi.

Ex: A4         True Xerox copies of medical Re-imbursement proceedings are 7 in all.

Ex: A5         Office copy of legal issued by the complainant to the respondent,

                   Dt. 23-12-2014.

Ex: A6         Original two acknowledgement cards and two postal receipts.

Ex: A7         Reply notice issued by the respondent no.2 through his counsel.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite parties 

MEMBER                                            MEMBER                                    PRESIDENT

Copy to :-

1. Sri J.V. Subbarayudu, Advocate for complainant.
2. Sri C.S. Riyazuddin, Advocate for Opposite parties
3.  
4.  
5.  
6. B.V.P.