IMPORTANT POINT
Death – The very fact that the hands of the deceased contacted/touched the loose and hung live wire while he was carrying heap of paddy, supports the above version of Complainants as such, Commission held, there was deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

ORDER

Sriranga Rao, Member (M-J).—This appeal is filed by the Appellants/Complainants No. 1 to 4 U/s. 15 of C.P. Act, 1986, praying this Commission to allow this appeal by setting aside the impugned order dt.31.07.2018 passed in CC.No.29/2014 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nizamabad and consequently to allow the complaint as prayed for.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellants No.1 to 4 in this appeal were Complainants Nos.1 to 4 and the Respondents No.1 & 2 were Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 in CC No.29/2014 before the District Forum, Nizamabad.

3. The brief facts of the case of the Complainants No.1 to 4 as per the averments of the complaint are as follows:-

The complainants submit that their family is eking livelihood on agriculture by cultivating their small land holding. The husband of the first Complainant Kummari Roddalla Rajaiah, Aged 38 years met with fatal electrical accident due to loose and hung live electrical wire and died on the spot due to “Electrocution” on 24.09.2010 at his agricultural field. The victim is the consumer/customer of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 vide agricultural service connection No.209.

4. The police authorities of Bhiknoor police station registered the incident on 24.09.2010 as crime N o.135/2010. The FIR, the inquest report and the postmortem report issued by the Deputy Medical Officer, Area Hospital, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District show that the death of K.R. Rajaiah was caused due to “shock due to electrocution”.

5. The complainants further submit that “The Supply of Electricity or other Energy” is ‘Service’ within the meaning of Sec.2 (1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 owe responsibility to supply the electricity without any deficiency of service and should not cause loss of human life. There is deficient and imperfect service on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. Sec.2 (d) of the CP Act, 1986, defines the word “Consumer” inclusively. The deceased husband of the complainant is a consumer within the meaning of Sec.2 (15) of the Electricity Act, 2003, and U/s.2 (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Apex Court held in M.P. State Electricity Board Vs. Sahil Kumar & Others (AIR 2002 SC 551) that if the energy so transmitted causes injury or death to human being who gets unknowingly trapped, the primary liability to compensate the sufferer is that of the supplier. The basis of such liability is the risk inherent in the very nature of such activity.

6. As per the version of the Complainant there is “deficient and imperfect services” on the part of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 as defined U/s. 2 (1) (d) and Sec.2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, (Act 68 of 1986). The Opposite Parties have also grossly violated statutory provisions of law as to supply of “Electricity”. Therefore, the Complainants have demanded the Opposite Parties for payment of tentative ex-gratia relief besides suitable compensation/damages to a tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the untimely death of the deceased who is the husband of the first complainant, due to “Electrocution”. The Opposite Parties stated that complainant requested for grant of tentative ex-gratia relief besides adequate compensation/damages is under consideration of the department and will decide the matter shortly and went on saying the same. The first complainant has approached the Opposite Parties for many times to ascertain the status of her claim but all the efforts failed.

7. As a last resort, the first Complainant has approached the Hon’ble High of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by filing W.P. No.6426 of 2014 with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 to pay tentative ex-gratia relief besides suitable compensation/damages. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad by its order dated 06.03.2014 directed the Writ Petitioner/Complainant to make afresh representation to the concerned authorities and the s