Superintending Engineer (Elec.), MESCOM, O And M Circle, Attavara vs Krishna Poojary

PETITIONERS who were the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 before the District Forum have filed this Revision Petition against the order dated 21.03.07 passed in appeal No. 1096/2006 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karnataka (in short, ?the State Commission?) whereunder the State Commission upholding the order dated 31.03.06 passed by the District Forum, Udupi in complaint No. 115/06 has directed the PETITIONERS to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the Respondent/complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of passing of the order of the District Forum till realization. Rs.1,000/- have been awarded as costs.

RESPONDENT No.1/Complainant is a consumer/subscriber of the cable T.V. connection in his house at Thenkanidiyur Village, Thottam. He has taken electricity connection for his house from the Petitioners. Opposite Party No. 3 is the cable operator. On 1.11.04 at about 8.30 A.M, Kumari Poornima, complainant?s daughter picked up the cable plug with an intention to fix it to the T.V. set. She was electrocuted due to the flow of strong current through the said cable wire as a result which she breathed her last. A complaint was registered with the Malpe Police but the Police instead of taking any action against the Petitioners or the Opposite Party No.3 hushed up the matter. It is alleged that the Petitioners were duty bound to maintain the electric poles and electric wires which they did not do as a consequence thereof they failed to discharge their duties. Opposite Party No. 3 was required to maintain cable connection in a lawful manner with due care which it failed to do so. After service of the notice, the Petitioners as well as Opposite Party No.3 put in appearance and filed their separate written statements.

Petitioners in their written statement have admitted that the complainant had taken electricity connection from them. It was also admitted that he was a subscriber for a cable connection to his T.V. Set. The electric installation was serviced on 2.11.95. It was admitted that Kumari Poornima died on 1.10.04 due to electrocution.It was denied that she died due to flow of electric current through cable wire. It was denied that the Petitioners had failed to maintain the electric pole outside the house and electric wires. That under Rule 30(3) & (4) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, it was the duty of the Complainant to maintain the installation in his premises. It was the duty of the Opposite Party No.3 to maintain the cable connection properly and the Petitioners have nothing to do with the cable connection. There was no fault or negligence in supply of electricity upto the premises of the complainant. That what happened in the premises was not in their personal knowledge and they were not required either to maintain installation or the flow of electricity in the complainant?s premises. That the Electrical Inspector under clause 161 of the Indian Electricity Act, 2003 had inspected the premises and found that the accident had taken place due to short circuit in the defective socket of the TV and not because of any other reason. There was neither negligence nor any deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioners. It was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

OPPOSITE Party No. 3 (International Cable T.V. Network) in its written statement averred that due to heavy rain fall, lightening and thunder the previous day of the day of occurrence, a high voltage electric current had passed to the television set through the power cord as a consequence of which the T.V. set was spoiled. When the daughter of the Complainant attempted to fix the cable socket to the T.V. set, she touched the T.V. socket as the cable socket had to be fixed to the T.V. Socket to get the signal. As the T.V was already spoiled and high voltage electric current was passing through the T.V. socket, all of a sudden she was electrocuted by high voltage deadly electric current and died on the spot. It was averred that T.V. cable connection had been disconnected by the OPPOSITE Party No.3 on 14.10.04 but the Complainant had taken the connection from the main cable without its knowledge. That OPPOSITE Party No.3 came to know about the illegal connection only after the incident on 1.11.04. That there was no relationship of Consumer and Service Provider between them as the Complainant was unlawfully availing its services without making any payment. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on its part. District Forum, taking into consideration the pleadings and evidence available on record, allowed the complaint and holding the Petitioners jointly and severally liable with the Opposite Party No.3 directed them to pay Rs.3,00,000/- to the Complainant by way of compensation along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of passing of its order till realization. Rs.1,000/- were awarded by way of costs. Petitioners as well as the Opposite Party No.3 being aggrieved filed separate appeals before the State Commission which had been dismissed by the impugned order. Counsel for the parties havebeen heard at length.

IT is not in dispute that the Complainant had availed the supply of electricity to his house from the Petitioners. IT is also not in dispute that he availed the cable connection to his T.V. set from the Opposite Party No.3 who is the cable operator. IT is also an admitted fact that the daughter of the Complainant had died on 1.11.04 due to electrocution. Post mortem report revealed that death was due to cardio-arrest as a result of electrocution. Complainant lodged the FIR. Police filed its report before the Divisional Magistrate Court, Kundapur on 1.11.04. The said report contained a statement of the mother of the deceased, Vasanthi to the effect that "Since there was heavy rain accompanied with thunders on the night of 31.10.04, the cable wire was disconnected from the T.V." The report concluded that no foul play was found. On the basis of the report published in the daily newspaper, Mangalore Electricity Company Ltd. had appointed its Executive Engineer to conduct an enquiry. The Executive Engineer after inspection at the spot submitted his report to the Superintending Engineer on 27.11.04. Report based on spot inspection found as under:- "the accident happened when Poornima was switching on the T.V. This electrical accident has occurred when Kumari Poornima, after switching on the television, was trying to insert the cable socket to the T.V. On inspection of the above said T.V., it was found that there was proper leakage in the T.V. Further there was no power leakage found in the cable that was used. Since there were huge thunders and lightning on the date before and at the time of the accident, electricity leakage is the cause of this accident. Also, the thunders and lightening are the reasons for it."

THE Chief Electrical Inspector, after due investigation, submitted his report on the incident to the Principal Secretary to the Government of Karnataka on 10.01.05. THE relevant portion of the report reads:- " Detailsof the accident: This accident has occurred in the house of one Sri. Krishnappa, resident of Garadimajalu Village, Malpe. This is a lighting installation (R.R.No. MLP-4588). THE deceased Kumari Poornima was the daughter of Krishnappa. THEre is a LG company branded portable T.V. in their house (Model No.RF-14 A80, Sl.No. CBT-3031 L 0041 321 N) and there is a 2 pin plug at the end of its power chord. Since there was heavy thunder and lightning on 31.10.04, the T.V. signal cable was disconnected. Probably, the lightning might have entered due to this and has made the T.V. set faulty and grounded. On 1.11.04 at 7.45 a.m. in the morning, when the T.V. was about to be switched on, since the T.V. was faulty, there was a leakage of electricity in the cable socket and since the electricity passed on to the ground through Kumari Poornima, she died on the spot. It has been reported as thus. On examination of the spot of accident, it is found that there has been leakage of electricity in the socket meant for T.V. cable. When potential was measured through multimeter from the cable socket to the earth, it was found that there was 110 Volts A.C in it. It has been reported in the investigation that the 5 Amps graded fuses installed in the control panel of the installation are not burnt and no leakage of electricity is found in the signal cable and it is recorded in the police mahazar that there were burnt marks on the right palm, right hand and right chest of the deceased Kumari Poornima. Conclusion and violation of Rules:This accident has occurred due to flow of electricity in the cable socket of the T.V. which was rendered faulty due to heavy lightning and thunder. THErefore, it is assumed that this accident has happened due to nature?s fury."

SECTION 2 (21) of the Electricity Act, 2003 defines "Electrical Inspector as under :- "Electrical Inspector" means a person appointed as such by the Appropriate Government under sub-section (1) of SECTION 162 and also includes Chief Electrical Inspector."

Section 162 of the Electricity Act, 2003 deals with the appointment of Chief Electrical Inspector and Electrical Inspector which reads as under:- "(1)The Appropriate Government may, by notification, appoint duly qualified persons to be Chief Electrical Inspector or Electrical Inspectors and every such Inspector so appointed shall exercise the powers and perform the functions of a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector under this Act and exercise such other powers and perform such other functions as may be prescribed within such areas or in respect of such class of works and electric installations and subject to such restrictions as the Appropriate Government may direct. (2) In the absence of express provision to the contrary in this Act, or any rule made thereunder, an appeal shall lie from the decision of a Chief Electrical Inspector or an Electrical Inspector to the Appropriate Government or if the Appropriate Government, by general or special order so directs, to an Appropriate Commission.

Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003 deals with the inquiries to be conducted by the Electrical Inspector and the same reads as under:- "(1)If any accident occurs in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity in or in connection with, any part of the electric lines or electrical plant of any person and the accident results or is likely to have resulted in loss of human or animal life or in any injury to a human being or an animal, such person shall give notice of the occurrence and of any such loss or injury actually caused by the accident, in such form and within such time as may be prescribed, to the Electrical Inspector or such other person as aforesaid and to such other authorities as the Appropriate Government may by general or special order, direct. (2) The Appropriate Government may, if it thinks fit, require any Electrical Inspector, or any other person appointed by it in this behalf, to inquire and report. (a) as to the cause of any accident affecting the safety of the public, which may have been occasioned by or in connection with, the generation, transmission, distribution, supply or use of electricity, or (b) as to the manner in, an extent to, which the provisions of this Act or rules and regulations made thereunder or of any license, so far as those provisions affect the safety of any person, have been complied with. (3) Every Electrical Inspector or other person holding an inquiry under sub-section (2) shall have all the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the purpose of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents and material objects, and every person required by an Electrical Inspector be legally bound to do so within the meaning of Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code."

FROM the perusal of the above mentioned provisions, it is evident that the Electrical Inspector appointed under the Electricity Act, 2003 is an authority appointed by the State Government who, in case of any accident, is directed by the State Government to enquire and report back as to the cause of the accident and to ascertain as whether the provisions of the Act or Rules and Regulation or any license has been violated. In the present case, the Chief Electrical Inspector submitted a report to the State of Karnataka on the accident and found that: a) on examination of the spot of accident, it is found that there has been leakage of electricity in the socket meant for T.V. cable; and b) no leakage of electricity was found in the signal cable. The report concluded that this accident had occurred due to flow of electricity in the cable socket of the T.V. which was rendered faulty due to heavy lightning and thunder. State Commission erred in not referring to the reports submitted either by the Executive Engineer or the Chief Electrical Inspector in which it was found that the accident had occurred due to flow of electricity in the cable socket of the T.V. which was rendered faulty due to heavy lightning and thunder. The Executive Engineer and the Chief Electrical Inspector found no fault with the Petitioners. The State Commission ought to have taken into consideration and referred to the reports of the Executive Engineer and the Chief Electrical Inspector.

THE State Commission has committed an error by not taking into consideration the two important piece of evidence, i.e. reports of the Executive Engineer and the Chief Electrical Inspector. THE finding recoded by the Chief Electrical Inspector had also attained finality as the Complainant did not file any appeal under Section 162 (2), Under Rule 30(4) of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956, the consumer is required to ensure that the installation under his control is maintained in a safe condition. The State Commission erred in presuming that the electric wires outside the premises of complainant?s house were not maintained properly because of which the accident occurred, when the Reports to the contrary, indicated that the real cause of accident was electricity leakage in the television due to lightening and thunder the previous day. The State Commission erred in not appreciating that the Petitioners could not be held liable on account of any mistake or short circuit which occurred beyond the metering point as the maintenance of the same is not within the province of the Petitioners. The State Commission has also recorded a finding that the cable wire came into contact with the electric wire. There is no evidence on record to show that the cable wire had came into contact with the electric wire. The State Commission has clearly erred in returning the finding that the cable wire came into contact with the electric wire. The said finding is based on "probability" and not on any evidence.

THE State Commission has also erred in returning the finding that "if there is any short circuit then necessarily electricity had been passed through cable wire". This finding is based on conjectures and runs counter to the evidence on record. THE State Commission has not even referred to, much less appreciated, the reports submitted by the Executive Engineer and Chief Electrical Inspector which clarified that electricity passed not through the cable but rather through the defective electric socket. In his report dated 27.11.04, the Executive Engineer found that the accident had occurred when Kumari Poornima, after switching on the television, was trying to insert the cable socket to the T.V. That power leakage was in the T.V. and not in the cable which was used. Similarly, the Chief Electrical Inspector in his report dated 10.01.05 submitted to the Principal Secretary to the Government of the Karnataka had concluded that the accident occurred due to flow of electricity in the cable socket of the T.V. which was rendered faulty due to heavy lightning and thunder. He did not find any fault with the installations put by the Petitioners. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the reports submitted by the Executive Engineer and the Chief Electrical Inspector should be accepted. THE Fora below erred in not relying on these reports.

FOR the reasons stated above, the orders passed by the FORa below cannot be sustained and the same are set aside and the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.