Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Prem Narain, Member
ANDHRA PRADESH EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION CO LTD - Appellant
Vs.
NALLABELLI UMA KUMARI AND ORS - Respondent
First Appeal No. 583 of 2012
Decided On : 27-08-2018
Sunil Kumar Ojha, Adv., Y. Rajagopala Rao, Adv., Sharat Kumar, Adv.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of evidence in supporting claims and the responsibility of the distribution company in maintaining electrical lines.
Headnote:
Deficiency in Service - Electrical Lines - Ex. A13, Exs. B1 and B2, Ex.A14 - M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari and Ors, (2002) 2 SCC 162, A.P. Transco & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhimeswara Swamy & Ors., RP No.3183 of 2009, Mohd. Noorullah Shareef & Ors. Vs. Managing Director Cum Chairman, FA Nos.235 of 2010 & 352 of 2010, A.P.Transco & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhimeswara Swamy & Ors. RP No.3183 of 2009 - The court discussed the maintenance of electrical lines, responsibility of the distribution company, and the evidence presented through photographs. The court also considered the compensation awarded and the cause of death due to electrocution.
Fact of the Case:
The complainants filed a consumer complaint for compensation due to the electrocution of respondent No.1's husband. The State Commission allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay compensation along with interest. The appellant company appealed against this order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State Commission's findings were based on evidence and that the appellant company failed to provide supporting evidence. The court dismissed the appeal.
Issues: The issues revolved around the maintenance of electrical lines, responsibility for maintenance, and the cause of death due to electrocution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the State Commission's findings were based on evidence and that the appellant company failed to provide supporting evidence. The court also emphasized the cause of death due to electrocution from the line that was to be maintained by the appellant company.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal.
JUDGMENT/ORDER :
Prem Narain, Presiding Member - This appeal has been filed by the appellant Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd. against the order dated 13.06.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in CC No.09/2011.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondents are the complainants in the matter and filed a consumer complaint before the State Commission for compensation on the ground of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant company for not maintaining the electrical lines properly on account of which the husband of respondent No.1 was electrocuted on 11.05.2009. The complaint was resisted by the appellant/opposite party company by filing the written statement. It was stated that the GI wire was laid by the deceased himself and thereby no deficiency can be attributed on the part of the opposite party company and therefore, the complaint be dismissed. However, the State Commission on the basis of the evidence on record allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs. 20,09,004/- along with 9% p.a. interest from the date of the complaint till actual payment.
3. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the present appeal has been filed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the appellant company is a distribution company and is only responsible for taking the electricity upto electric pole and from pole to the meter. Beyond the meter, it is the sole responsibility of the consumer to maintain the line. The deceased himself had taken the connection from the meter to a pole, which was affixed by the deceased himself and a tube light was hanged over that pole. There was a guava tree in between, therefore, the GI wire was snapped due to branches of the guava tree. The deceased died due to electrocution from this live wire. This was totally the domain of the deceased himself and no fault lies with the distribution company. It was stated that the order of the State Commission was totally illegal as no deficiency can be fixed on the appellant company.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents stated that all these points were examined by the State Commission thoroughly and the State Commission has given clear cut findings on these issues. Learned counsel for the appellant has not given cogent arguments against the findings of the State Commission. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to the following observations of the State Commission:-
"The opp. Parties have not denied or disputed the details as to how the lines are to be maintained and inspected by the department mentioned in material accompanied the sketch. Ex. A13 a bunch of photographs showing the location of the electrical poles with wires and the guava tree coupled with Exs. B1 and B2 reports established that the service wire along with the GI wire is passing from the pole to the house of the complainants through the branches of the Guava tree. The hanged GI wire on the branches of the guava tree which was beside electric pole and the electrical pole is situated very adjacent to the building where the deceased along with the complainants was living and that the GI wire which is used for the support to the service wire was found cut and hanged on the tree branches and that while touching the hanged GI."
The opposite parties in their written version stated that the consumer himself has laid GI wire and they are not responsible for it. The photographs i.e. Ex.A14 reveal the cement concrete pole is protection to half and joined with a steel objects and it is quite possible that the electricity passes through the steel objects. The opposite parties have further stated in their written version that there was a tube light on old broken cement concrete + steel rod joint and it is connected unauthorisedly. The same tube light was fixed on new cement concrete pole that
