Andhra Pradesh Eastern Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (APEPDCL) vs Nallabelli Uma Kumari & 2 Ors

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.

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.

Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission, the present appeal has been filed.

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.

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 was fixed subsequent to the death of the deceased. If the tube light connection on old pole is unauthorized, the opposite parties have to explain why the electricity department fixed the same tube light on a new cement concrete pole."

It was argued that the State Commission has clearly held that GI wire was going from pole to the meter and the same was snapped due to guava tree. Clearly, this is not the same that has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant. The State Commission has also held that the tube light was again affixed by the appellant company and therefore, it cannot be said that this was an illegal connection by the deceased from the meter onwards. Thus, both the grounds taken by the learned counsel for the appellant are baseless and no evidence has been produced by the learned counsel for the appellant to support his contentions.

It was further stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the deceased was a teacher and a reasonable compensation has been awarded by the State Commission. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following judgments to substantiate his arguments:-

"(1) M.P. Electricity Board Vs. Shail Kumari and Ors, (2002) 2 SCC 152.

(2) A.P. Transco & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhimeswara Swamy & Ors., RP No.3183 of 2009, decided on 08.12.2014 (NC)

(3) Mohd. Noorullah Shareef & Ors. Vs. Managing Director Cum Chairman, FA Nos.235 of 2010 & 352 of 2010, decided on 07.03.2018 (NC)

(4) A.P.Transco & Ors. Vs. Ch. Bhimeswara Swamy & Ors. RP No.3183 of 2009, decided on 08.12.2014 (NC)."

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record. It is seen that there is a delay of 52 days in filing the present appeal. However, the same was condoned by the Commission vide its order dated 31.10.2012. From the observations made by the State Commission as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents and mentioned above, it is clear that live wire carrying current from pole to the meter was snapped and the assertion of the appellant company that it was the wire beyond the meter is not supported by the evidence. The State Commission has based its finding on various photographs, which have not been filed by the appellant company with the appeal. No benefit can be given for its own lapse for not filing documents in support of the case. This clearly shows that the State Commission has rightly interpreted the photographs and given a finding accordingly. Learned counsel for the appellant company has not argued on any ground taken in the appeal.

It is specifically seen that no ground has been taken in the appeal in respect of the compensation awarded by the State Commission. Hence, it is not necessary to go into this aspect and to examine the quantum of compensation awarded by the State Commission in the present case. Only fact to be seen is whether the death has occurred due to electrocution and from the line that was to be maintained by the appellant company. Though copy of the FIR and post-mortem report are not available on the record, a preliminary report of Electrical Accident dated 12.05.2009 signed by Asst. Divisional Engineer is available on record wherein it is stated that "on 11.05.2009 at 10:30 Sri Nallabilli Venkata Raja Mohan Rao contacted with hanged G.I. wire and gets electric shock and died." This clearly proves that the death was due to electrocution. As examined earlier, the State Commission has already established that snapped wire was in respect of the electrical line going from electric pole to the meter and maintenance of this line also rests with the appellant/opposite parties. Moreover, neither any supporting evidence has been filed by the appellant company nor photographs have been filed. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the First Appeal No.583 of 2012 and the same is dismissed.