AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
These two appeals have been filed against the impugned order dated 23.02.2010 of the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in
short ‘the State Commission’) passed in CC No.9/2008.
Brief facts of the case are that appellants in appeal No.352 of 2010 are the original complainants in complaint No.09 of 2008. They filed a complaint
alleging that on 23.06.2007 complainant No.4 along with his brother was coming from the mosque after offering namaj at 5.00 a.m. and they were
returning to their home. Near their home, one snapped electrical wire was hanging from the electric pole and the brother of complainant No.4 Mohd.
Habeebullah Shareef came into contact with that live wire and was electrocuted. It was alleged in the complaint that at 11 PM on 22.06.2007 the
electricity supply was stopped and several residents had made the complaint to start the electricity. The complainants informed the opposite parties
and post-mortem was also conducted, wherein the cause of death was found to be electrocution.
The complainants then filed a consumer complaint bearing No.9 of 2008 before the State Commission alleging deficiency against the opposite parties.
The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties mainly on the ground that the complainants were not consumers as no services have been offered
by the opposite parties on consideration to the complainants. It was stated that as per their rules, the opposite parties have already paid a sum of
Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainants. It was further stated that there was a gail and storm on the night of 22.06.2007 and some of the
trees had fallen down. One tree also fell on the electric lines, which were connected with electric pole in question. Thus, the incident happened and it
was a natural calamity and no negligence can be imputed to the opposite parties.
The State Commission vide its order dated 23.2.2010 allowed the complaint as under:-
“In the result the complaint is allowed in part directing the A.P.TRANSCO opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.18 lakhs together with interest @ 7%
p.a. from the date of complaint i.e., 12.2.2008 till the date of realization together with costs computed at Rs.5,000/-. Out of said compensation, second
complainant mother is entitled to Rs.8 lakhs, while the first complainant father is entitled to Rs.4 lakhs and remaining complainants 3 to 5 are entitled to
Rs.2 lakhs each. Time for compliance four weeks.â€
The opposite parties have filed appeal No.235 of 2010 and the complainants have also filed appeal no.352 of 2010 against the order of the State
Commission. As both the appeals arise out of the same order they are decided together. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred to
as complainants and the opposite parties.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the opposite parties stated that the complainants had filed
an FIR on the same day and then the complainants have also moved application to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and filed a criminal
complaint about the same incident. Police must have investigated the matter, but no police report was submitted by the complainants before the State
Commission. It was argued that the complainants are not consumers as there was no privity of contract between them and the opposite parties. The
learned counsel argued that the State Commission has wrongly calculated the amount of compensation, which is totally based on presumptions and
assumptions. Though, the deceased was totally unemployed, still the State Commission has calculated the compensation by treating his income as
Rs.20,000/- per month. The State Commission has been swayed away by the assertion of the complainants that they had spent Rs.5,00,000/- for the
studies of the deceased.
To buttress his arguments, the learned counsel for the opposite parties cited the following orders of this Commission:-
(a) Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Smt. Ganga Devi, III (1996) CPJ 182 (NC), wherein this Commission while deciding upon a similar set of
facts, held that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant was not a consumer.
(b) In Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (APEPDCL) Vs. Janni Suramma & 2 Ors., Revision Petition No. 3305 of 2012, decided
on 19.11.2015 , wherein the death was caused on account of the high tension live electrical wires lying in low level in the garden. This Commission
relaying upon Shankar Sitaram Jadhav Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board, III (1994) CPJ 50 (NC), dismissed the compliant on the ground that
the complainant does not fall within the purview of ‘consumer’.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the complainants stated that compensation granted by the State Commission is inadequate as the
deceased was a qualified engineer having completed his Bachelor of Engineering. All his friends were getting Rs.25,000/- per month, whereas the
State Commission has calculated the compensation by taking his income as Rs.20,000/- per month. The learned counsel further mentioned that the
State Commission has cited in its order a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court namely, Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar,
2002 (2) ALD 4 (SC) , wherein it is clearly stated that in such matters the Electricity Board would be treated as deficient. Once the deficiency is
proved, the complainants are entitled for compensation. The complainants had prayed for Rs.99,00,000/-, however, the State Commission has allowed
only Rs.18,00,000/-.
The learned counsel further mentioned that the family of the deceased had spent lot of money in the education of the deceased. On these grounds the
learned counsel for the complainants stated that complainants are entitled for a greater compensation than that awarded by the State Commission. To
buttress his arguments, learned counsel placed reliance on A.P. Transco & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhimeswara & Ors., RP No. 3183/2009, decided on
08.12.2014 , wherein this Commission held the opposite party deficient and liable for deficiency in service for the death caused by the falling wire
when transmission line fell on her while she was on her way to the market. In this case the National Commission has increased the compensation by
Rs.5 lakhs over and above the compensation of Rs.2,44,000/- granted by the State Commission. Thus, there is no ambiguity about the jurisdiction of
the consumer forum to decide such cases.
I have carefully considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and have examined the material on record. The first
question is to be determined in the present case whether the complainants are consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This issue was
raised by the opposite parties in their written statement, however, the State Commission has not given a clear finding on this issue, though the implied
inference is that the State Commission has treated the complainants as consumers and that is why the complaint has been allowed.
The State Commission has given its award on the basis of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumar,
2002 (2) ALD 4(SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has allowed the compensation on the basis of strict liability. However, that was not a
case under consumer Protection Act. This Commission in OP No.253 of 2002, titled Smt. Munesh Devi Vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd., & Ors.,
decided on 03.02.2014, has allowed the complaint which was a similar matter where the death of the husband of the complainant was caused due to
the transformer installed and maintained by the opposite parties, while he was returning home from duty. He was taken to the Hospital, where he
succumbed to burn injuries. This Commission awarded compensation of Rs.25.00 lakhs along with interest. Aggrieved by that order SLP was filed by
the opposite parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal no.5672 of 2014 dismissed the SLP vide its order dated 22.08.2014.
This was a peculiar case where the complainant had earlier filed civil case against the opposite parties for damages and compensation, however, the
same could not be pursued as the complainant could not pay the court fees and her request to exempt from the payment of court fees was rejected by
the High Court and by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In that situation, the complainant filed complaint case before this Commission under Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 and the same was allowed by this Commission and SLP filed against that order was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. These facts clearly show that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has accepted jurisdiction of the consumer fora to decide such cases. Against
this, no confirmation by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the cases decided by this Commission as referred to by the learned counsel for the OP/A.P.
Transco (now T.S. Transco) has been brought to my notice. Thus, after confirmation of the jurisdiction of consumer fora by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court, I do not see any doubt in exercise of jurisdiction by the consumer fora to decide such complaints. Indirectly, this implies that the complainants
meet the criteria for being a consumer in such cases. Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board
(supra) has established the principle that the OP will be liable from the strict liability point of view to compensate the complainant.
From the above examination, it is clear that the complainants are entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties, Transco & Ors. So far as
the question of quantum of compensation is concerned, the State Commission has taken into consideration the average monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-
on the basis of the assertion of the complainants that similarly qualified persons were getting Rs.20,000/- per month. The fact is that the person who
died by way of electrocution was not earning anything as he was unemployed, though his qualification has not been disputed by the opposite parties
that he was B.Tech graduate. The compensation needs to be decided on the basis of his earning. It is quite likely that he would have got the job after
sometime and that opportunity did not come in his life. It would be prudent to calculate the compensation on the basis of average of these two figures
and that would come to Rs.10,000/- per month. Accordingly, if the compensation is calculated on the same lines as calculated by the State
Commission, the compensation admissible would be Rs.12,00,000/- only. Consequently, I do not find merit in the arguments of the complainants that
the compensation should be increased.
Based on the above discussion, the First Appeal No.235 of 2010 is partly allowed and the order dated 23.02.2010 of the State Commission is
modified to the extent that the opposite parties A.P.Transco (now T.S. Transco) & Ors. would be liable to pay Rs.12,00,000/- (rupees twelve lakhs
only) as compensation instead of Rs.18,00,000/- as awarded by the State Commission along with the same interest as awarded by the State
Commission. Accordingly, the second complainant mother shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.5.33 lakh, complainant No.1 father shall be entitled for
Rs.2.65 lakhs and complainants No.3, 4 & 5 shall be entitled to Rs.1.34 lakhs each along with interest as awarded by the State Commission. The
opposite parties are directed to comply with this order within a period of 45 days from the date of this order.
As a consequence of the decision taken in FA No.235 of 2010, the appeal filed by the complainants i.e. FA No.352 of 2010 stands dismissed.