H M MANJUNATH vs H MANJAPPA

-FOR the sake of convenience, the parties in this order are referred to according to their position in the complaint filed before the District Forum.

APPEAL No. 1230/2007 is by opposite party No. 1 (for short, " O. P. 1") and Appeal No. 1241/2007 is by O. Ps. 2 to 4 challenging the Order dated 9. 5. 2007 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Davanagere, in Complaint No. 302/2006, by which the District Forum has allowed the complaint of the complainants in part. The case of the complainants is that their son by name Dhananjaya suffered electric shock while he was attempting to fix cable wire to Television and, consequently, he died on the way to Hospital. Thereafter, the complainants filed the complaint before the District Forum alleging "deficiency in Service" both against the Cable Operator and the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (for short, BESCOM" ). According to the complainants, since the cable wire was drawn along with electric wire, the electric wire came in contact with the cable wire and allowed electricity to pass through the cable wire and this took away the life of the son of the complainants while he was attempting to fix the cable wire to the Television in their house. The complainants have produced evidence before the District Forum to show that the cable wire was drawn on the electricity pole along with electric wire.

The defence put forth by the Cable Operator is that he did not provide cable connection to the complainants and that the complainants were enjoying the benefit of cable service unauthorizedly. But in proof of this averment the Cable Operator has not adduced any acceptable evidence before the District Forum. On the other hand, the complainants have adduced evidence to show that they have taken the cable connection to their house from the Cable Operator. This shows that the BESCOM has allowed the Cable Operator to draw cable wire through the electric pole along with electric wire illegally. The BESCOM being an "authority" is required to provide all safety measures to the consumers and it ought not to have allowed the Cable Operator to draw cable wire along with electric wire.

MR. N. S. Sanjay Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for the BESCOM, submitted that since the complainants have not availed any service from the BESCOM, they cannot be considered as "consumers", so far as BESCOM is concerned. It is not in dispute that electricity has been supplied by the BESCOM to the premises of the complainant. It is also in evidence that cable wire was drawn through the electric pole along with electric wire. If the BESCOM had prevented the Cable Operator from drawing the cable wire through the electric pole along with electric wire, the incident could not have taken place. The BESCOM owes a duty to take all safety measures while supplying electricity to its consumers. In the instant case, failure on the part of the BESCOM in not preventing the Cable Operator from drawing cable wire along with the electric wire through the electric pole is a "deficiency in Service". The Cable Operator has also violated the instructions issued by the BESCOM not to draw cable wire through electric poles. Therefore, in our view, both the Cable Operator and the BESCOM are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the complainants. In the instant case, the son of the complainants who died due to electric shock was aged about 21 years. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the District Forum at Rs. 2,00,000 is just and reasonable. In the said view of the matter, both the Appeals are liable to be dismissed.

IN the result, we pass the following Order: (1) The Appeals are dismissed. (2) The O. Ps. have deposited certain amounts in these appeals before this Commission. Hence, the office is directed to transfer the said amounts to the District Forum to enable the District Forum to pay the same to the complainants after due notice to them.

Appeals dismissed.