SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 18478

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
1.The Assistant Divisional Engineer Operation Telangana State Southern Power Distribution – Appellant
Versus
1.Smt. Katamoni Shivarani – Respondent
SC/36/A/19/2019



BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD (ADDITIONAL BENCH)

FA. No. 19/2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC. No. 55/2013 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, MAHABUBNAGAR Between :

1. The Assistant Divisional Engineer, Operation, Telangana State Southern power Distribution, Nagarkurnool, Mahboobnagar District.

2. The Superintending Engineer/Operation, TSSPDCL, Mahboobnagar Circle, Mahboobnagar.

3. The Managing Director, TSSPDCL, Corporate Office, H.No.6-1-50, Mint Compound, Hyderabad.

…..Appellants/Opposite parties.

And

1. Smt. Katamoni Shivarani W/o Late Anjaneyulu, Aged about 25 years, Occupation:Houshold.

2. Katamoni Pandu S/o Late Anjaneyulu, Aged 01 year, Under the guardianship of Respondent No.1.

Both are R/o Bommaraspalli Village, Midijil Mandal, Mahboobnagar District.

…Respondents/Complainants.

Counsel for the Appellants/ Opposite party : M/s. P.Ganeswar Rao Counsel for the Respondents/ Complainants : K.Rajeswara Rao-R1 & R2 QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO, MEMBER), &

Hon’ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, Member (N-J)

WEDNESDAY THE TWENTY EIGHT DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR *****

ORDER : (HON’BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO, MEMBER)

1. This Appeal is filed by the Appellants/Opposite parties U/s.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this State Commission to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order of the District Forum, Mahabubnagar, passed in CC. No. 55/2013 dt.25.10.2018 and consequently to dismiss the complaint.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellants 1 to 3 herein, were Opposite Parties1 to 3 and the Respondents 1 and 2 in this appeal were the Complainants in CC 55/2013 before the District Forum.

3. The brief facts of complaint are as follows:-

The deceased Katamoni Anjaneyulu who was the husband of the Complainant No.1, was working as Hitachi Operator. On 02-06-2012 afternoon at 12:00 p.m, he went to his cousin brothers’ house at Indrakal village, Tadoor mandal to attend to Satyanarayana Vratham. Thereafter, he went to the house of Yadamma who is his relative. The house of Yadamma has the Electric service connection bearing.SC No. 140800234 in the name of Rajamoni Sekhar, who is her husband. While the deceased Katamoni Anjaneyulu was putting his cell phone to charging, accidentally got electrocuted through his cell phone charger, over his left hand finger and fell down on the ground. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Nagarkurnool for treatment. While undergoing the treatment he died on the same day. At that time the entire village suffered from electric shock. The said problem of the whole village suffering from electric shock was continuing for one month due to which TVs and bulbs in the houses of villagers were burnt. The village people informed about the said problem to the opposite parties and also gave representation to them for rectifying the said problem but there was no response from the Opposite parties. As per enquiry of Opposite parties, the cause for the said problem was that the LT line neutral wire was cut, so the neutral and the phase were mixed at the transformer of the village and due to the same the earthing system was not working and as a result of the same high voltage was passed all over the village lines due to which the electric fluctuations were taken place and the same was the negligence of the Opposite parties.

The Police of Tadoor police station registered the case in Crime No.58/12 u/s 174 Cr PC about the death of deceased due to electrocution. The Complainants further submit that the husband of the Complainant No.1 was a Hitachi Operator. He was hale and healthy, and was earning monthly income of Rs.10,000/- and contributing the same to his family.

4. The Opposite parties owe legal responsibility to conduct periodical checks on electrical poles and wires to avoid such type of accidents but the Opposite party failed to conduct any inspection. It is the duty of the Opposite parties to take all the safet

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top