Karnataka

Chitradurga

CC/347/2019

Sri. Chandrahasa S/o Veerannaraju - Complainant(s)

Versus

Section Officer, BESCOM - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. G.S. Shivakumar

01 Oct 2019

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED ON:24/05/2019

DISPOSED      ON:01/10/2019

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHITRADURGA.

CC.NO:347/2019

DATED: 1^st October 2019

PRESENT :-     Smt. C.M.Chanchala.                     …. President

                           B.A.L.,,LL.B.,                 

                            

                        SRI. SHIVAKUMAR.K.N    :              MEMBER

                     M.Com., LL.B.,

 

……COMPLAINANT/S	1. Sri. Chandrahasa S/o Veerannaraju, Aged about 45 years, R/o Avinahatti Village, Holalkere Taluk, Chitradurga District.   (Rep., by Sri. G.S. Shivakumar, Advocate)
V/S
…..OPPOSITE PARTY	Bescom Represented by its :- 1.Section Officer, Bescom, Rural Sub Division, Holalkere, Chitradurga,.   2. Asst., Executive Engineer, O & M Electrical Sub-Division, Bescom, Holalkere, Chitradurga District.   3. Managing Director, Bescom, Corporate Officer, Bangalore.   (Rep., by Sri.T.K. Chandrasheker Rao, Advocate All OPs.)

Pronounced on 1^st October 2019.

Written by C.M.Chanchala, President.

ORDERS

1.    This is a complaint of alleged deficiency of service filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 by Chandrahasa the Complainant against the Opposite parties (for short ‘OPs’) praying for compensation of Rs.85,000/- under deferent head - etc.

The Complaint:

2.  The case of the complainant is that electric connection was duly provided by OPs in the village of the Complainant through over-head electric live wire and they were left the electric live line and not covered any safety guard or other precautionary measures around the electric live line which was connected to the transformer and the to the villages for their domestic use. It is further case of the complainant that on 27-09-2018 at about 4.00 pm Buffalo belonging to him was came in contact with a broken electric live wire of the OPs, lying in the road side and was electrocuted. Due to negligence and/or deficiency on the part of the OPs in maintaining the electric line, said electric wire fell down on the road side, causing the death of the Baffalo. This incident was duly informed to the local police station who registered a UD case and sent the dead body for postmortem examination to Animal Husbandry. According to the post mortem report the cause of death was electrocution. Further it is contended by the complainant that by not maintaining the electric lines in a proper condition the OPs have committed deficiency in service and therefore they were liable to compensate the loss. Therefore he filed complaint before this Dist. Forum seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs. 45,000/- towards loss of his bullock and also Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of income, mental agony, other expenses etc.,

 3.     After hearing on admission the complaint was admitted and  notice were ordered to be issued to the OPs  to file their written versions under section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 (in short “the Act). The OP 1 to 3 have appeared through their counsel and filed written version.

Defense:

4.    The opponents appeared before the Dist. Forum and denied the claim of the complainant. It is contended that the buffalo was not died due to the electric shock as alleged by the Complainant. It was denied that there was no any complaint made by the villagers about any fault in the transmission lines. Further the complainant has not intimated the incident to the Ps on 27-09-2018 regarding his death of Buffalo, therefore they contended that the complaint being false be dismissed.

Evidence :

5.      The complainant got himself examined as PW-1 by filing her affidavit as a part of examination in chief and got marked documents as EX- A1 to A 6 and closed his evidence.

6.    On behalf of OPs one T.K. Thippaswamy, Assistant Executive Engineer of the OPs got himself examined as RW-1 by filing his affidavit as a part of examination in chief and no documents have been marked and closed the evidence.

Arguments:

7.      We have heard the OPs counsel and perused the written arguments filed by the advocates.  

8.      The points that arise for our determination are;

1. Whether the complainant proves that deficiency of service on the part of opponents?

2. Whether the complainant proves that he is entitled for the relief sought?

3. What order?

9.      Our finding on the above points are as under;

          Point No.1: In the Affirmative.

          Point No2: In the partly Affirmative.

          Point No3: As per final order,

Discussion and Reasoning:

Point No.1 and 2:

 10.  The complainant alleged that his buffalo died due to electrocution.  The OPs have stated that without any evidence the complainant filed the present complaint alleging death was due to electrocution. He produced 6 documents to prove his case.

11.   But in this respect of allegation of the complainant we have noticed that admittedly in the post mortem report issued by the Authority, Marked as EX- A 4, which clearly shows that due to contact with the electric live wire of OPs the Complainants buffalo was electrocuted and died on the spot. Therefore in this respect the contention of the OPs is not correct. Further OPs did not disown the fact that the said live wire belongs to them. Accordingly, the responsibility of the OPs for proper and safe maintenance of such live wire cannot be ignored as a casual fault especially when a villager/human/animals being died who came in contact with the said live wire lying on the road side.

12.   Further the Hon’ble National Commission in many judgment held that fallen of any electric live wire in the field other than its own position and death of any person with the contact of the said live wire by itself speaks for the negligence of duties in maintaining the live wire and deficiency in service. The OPs have failed to give any satisfactory reply as to why preventive measures in respect of the live wire, lying on a field of the village other than its original place, were not taken to avert any fatal incident. Such laches on the part of the OPs cannot be ignored very causally specially when there was a loss of a life of a human/animals being and the OPs are highly responsible and guilty for such wrongful act.

13.   There was no observation as why such dangerous piece of live wire remained unnoticed by the local authorities any why there was no earlier complaint as regards the disconnected live wire. In this respect we are of the view there is no denial on behalf of the complainant that his buffalo died on the spot due to electrocution and the OPs also did not challenge the post mortem report which reveals the death of the Buffalo due the electrocution. Furthermore the local authorities are not liable to inspect whether there is any snapped live wire is lying or hanging or not, the sole liability is of the OPs and moreover the OPs did not show us any law that the Local Authorities i.e. Panchayat or Municipality is also liable to maintain the line and wire of the electric plant or pole. As the line, wire, pole and plant are the properties of the OPs, the duty of its maintenance is also lies on the OPs and the OPs cannot shift its responsibility on the others.

14.  The OPs have further submitted that if any accident takes place in the open field the Complainant cannot be termed as a consumer in respect of such incident since no obligation is there by the OPs to take care such unnoticed problem where there was no complaint earlier.

15.  We have noticed that the OPs have only mentioned that the Complainant is not a consumer in the eye of law, but why the Complainant is not consumer no explanation have been given by the OPs. In this respect it is important to narrate the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, reported in IV (2008) CPJ 139 (NC), wherein Their Lordships have held that the villagers pay taxes to the village Panchayats and power consumption charges to electricity company, are consumers and the Complainant being beneficiary to the service provided by the Company entitled to compensation. In the said judgment it has been further observed that the villagers have right for payment of taxes and seeking facilities such as street lights, drainage etc. In view of the abovementioned judgment we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

16.  Further in the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Commission, reported in (2006) II CPJ 245 (NC), wherein same proposition has been held that death due to electrocution or damage due to electrocution, the Board/ Company cannot avoid its liability to compensate the loss and damage or the sufferer.

 17.   The complainant stated in the prayer of the complaint that the cost of the buffalo is Rs.45,000/-. However, in the documents produced by him shows that the cost of the buffalo is Rs.30,000/-. As the complainant proved deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, he is not entitled for the reliefs claimed along with interest, compensation for deficiency of service, compensation towards mental agony and cost of the proceedings. Accordingly, we answered these points in the Affirmative.

Point No.3:- In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned in point No.1 and 2, we pass the following order. 

                                      : ORDER:

The Complainant is partly allowed.

The opposite parties (1 to 3) are directed to pay jointly and severally  Rs. 30,000/- towards cost of the buffalo to the complainant along with interest @ 10 % per annum from the date of filing of this complaint; within six weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order. OPs also shall jointly and severally pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation for deficiency of service, mental agony and also cost of the proceeding within six weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order.  In case of non-compliance of the order the entire amount shall carry interest @ 10% per annum till its realization.

The assistant registrar is directed to send free copies of this order to the all the parties free of cost within a week from today.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, typescript edited, corrected and then pronounced in the open court this  1st day of October 2019)

 

 

MEMBER

PRESIDENT.

             

 

 

ANNEXURE

Witness examined for the complainant side:

 

Complainant- Chandrahasa has examined-in-chief by filing affidavit as PW1.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

01	Ex-A-1:-	Xerox copy of the Complainant
02	Ex-A-2:-	Xerox copy of the FIR
03	Ex-A-3:-	Xerox copy of the Mahajar
04	Ex-A-4:-	Xerox copy of the Statement
05	Ex.A-5:-	Xerox copy of the P.M. Report
06	Ex.A-6:-	Photos of the deceased Buffallo

 

 

Witnesses examined on behalf of OP No.3:

DW-1:- Sri. Thippeswamy S/o Kalachar, Asst., Executive Engineer (Ele) Bescom, Holalkere.

 

Documents marked for the opponents side:

 

                                      NIl

 

        (C.M.Chanchala  )

                       President.

                                                                                     

 

 

           ( Shivakumar K.N.)

                                                                                     Member.