O R D E R
This is a complainant filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking the relief to direct the O.Ps. to pay to the complainants a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs with interest @ 12% p.a., towards compensation due to the death of Gowreesu due to electrical shock and also to award damages for causing mental agony on the following averments. The 1st complainant is the widow and complainants 2 to 5 are the minor, children of the deceased Gowreesu. On 26-4-2012 at about 8 A.M. the deceased who was working as labourer under Upadhi Hami Scheme in Forest Teak Nursery, Near MDO Office, Pachipenta Village went to open the lock of Panel board to switch on the motor and as he sustained electrical shock he fell on the ground. Immediately after the incident he was taken to primary health centre Pachipenta where the doctors examined and declared that the deceased died due to electrical shock and burn injuries. After the accident the Beat Officer by name Sri Borra Srinivasa Rao lodged a report with SHO Pachipenta about this incident and the police registered the report as case in Crime No.31/2012 and sent the dead body to the Government Hospital for Post Mortem Examination. After post-mortem was conducted the dead body was handed over to the complainants for cremation. As on the date of accident the deceased was working as a labourer and was earning Rs.200/- per day. The above said accident was occurred due to the dereliction of the duties and deficiency of service on the part of employees of the O.Ps. and as the complainants are deprived of the support of deceased they are entitled to get compensation as prayed for.
The claim of compensation is highly excessive, imaginary and without legal basis and as the petition merits no consideration the same is liable to be dismissed.
It is averred that to make such a claim the complainants have to file a case under workmen’s compensation Act in a separate Forum but not a complaint in this Forum. It is averred that the District Collector and District Water Management Authority are the necessary parties and for not implead them the present complaint is not maintainable.
In the counter of O.P.4 it is averred that the deceased was employed by Divisional Forest Officer in Teak Nursery to do its work and as such the said authority is competent to initiate action for settlement of compensation claim made by the family of the deceased and though the 4th O.P. is added as a party they are not liable to initiate any action for settlement of compensation claim of the complainants and as such the present complaint is liable to be dismissed against them.
On behalf of O.Ps. evidence affidavits of O.Ps. 2,3,and 4 are filed.
In a decision reported :- The Honourable Supreme Court of India in the case between Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Versus Shail Kumar and others (2002 (2) ALD 4 (SC) as reported in Supreme Court full reports in C.A.No.180 of 2002 decided on the 11th day of January, 2002 it was observed and held in Para 8:
PARA 8:- 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 “. It differs from the liability which arises on account of the negligence or fault in this way i.e., the concepts of negligence comprehends that the foreseeable harm 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.
AND IN ANOTHER DECISION REPORTED OF M.P. ELECTRICITY BOARD VS. SHAIL KUMAR REPORTED IN 2002 (2) ALD 4 (SC) AND IN REVISION PETITION NO.3457 OF 2009 IN DIVISIONAL ENGINEER (OPERATIONS) AND ANOTHER Vs. SMT. BUJAMMA AND OTHERS
Wherein it was held that the petitioners are service providers, to whom deceased had paid for sanction and installation of the electricity connection including wiring, and it was, therefore, their responsibility to ensure that it was properly maintained and kept in a good condition so that it does no snap.
It is their responsibility to ensure that the said wires are properly maintained and kept in good condition. Basing on the principles of strict liability the person undertaking an activity involving hazardous or risk exposure to human life, is liable under torts to compensate for the injury suffered by any other person irrespective of any negligence or carelessness on the part of Manager’s of such undertakings.
When the O.Ps. 1 and 2 have supplied electricity to the 3rd O.P. a duty is cast upon them to ensure that the wires through which the electricity is passed are properly maintained and are kept in good condition. As the O.Ps. 1 and 2 did not maintain the wires in good condition and as the 3rd O.P. who is the Registered Consumer also did not take steps to get the damaged wire repaired or replaced, there is any amount of dereliction of duties and deficiency of service on the part of officials of O.Ps. 1 to 3. Hence, they are liable to pay compensation to the complainants.
Now, the point for consideration is whether the complainants are entitled to get Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation from O.Ps. 1 to 3. As per complainants the deceased was working as a labourer and was earning Rs.200/- per day. Except the evidence affidavit of complainant no cogent evidence is adduced to prove the actual earnings of the deceased. Hence we deem it fit to accept the Annual Income of the deceased at Rs.30,000/-. Out of the said annual income of the deceased a 1/3rd which comes to Rs.10,000/- can straight away be deducted towards personal living expenses of the deceased. The balance of Rs.20,000/- can be taken as annual loss of dependency. As per the complainant the deceased was aged about 35 years. Hence the appropriate multiplier is fixed at 16. When the above annual loss of dependency is multiplied by the appropriate multiplier 16 fixed supra, the compensation under the head loss of dependency comes to Rs.3,20,000/-. The same is accordingly awarded as compensation to the petitioners under the head loss of dependency. In addition to that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- is awarded to the 1st complainant for loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards funeral expenses. In all, the complainants are entitled to get Rs.3,30,000/- towards compensation and damages.
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
President
3.
For P.W.1
2.
For O.P.:-
NIL
President.
