A.P. Transco & Anr vs Telapolu Venkata Latha Kumari & Ors

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner A.P. Transco & anr. against the order dated 06.09.2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in Appeal No.1084 of 2009.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/complainants filed a consumer complaint bearing No.109 of 2003 against the petitioners/opposite parties alleging that due to the fault and deficiency of the opposite parties, the husband of the complainant No.1 was electrocuted on 13.10.2002. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties, however, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nellore, (in short 'the District Forum') allowed the complaint vide its order dated 01.09.2009 and passed the following order:-

"11. To What Relief: In the Result: the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to deposit Rs.4,25,000/- (Rupees four lakhs twenty five thousand only) only with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. from 19.4.2003, within 30 days from the date of communication of this order and on such deposit the complainant No.1 is permitted to withdraw Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) and the complainants 4 and 5 are permitted to withdrawn Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) each and the remaining amount shall be kept equally in the names of the complainants 2 and 3 in any Nationalized bank till they attain the majority."

The complainants were not satisfied with the award of the District Forum and complainants preferred appeal bearing No.1084 of 2009 before the State Commission. The State Commission accepted the appeal and enhanced the compensation to Rs.7,20,000/- alongwith 6% p.a. interest from the date of filing of the complaint till actual payment. Hence, the present revision petition by the opposite parties/petitioners herein.

Heard the learned proxy counsel for the petitioners, who appeared on the authority letter given by the main counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent was also heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that the complainant is not a consumer and the District Forum has not addressed this issue. The District Forum has calculated the compensation on the basis of Rs.3000/- as income of the deceased per month. Though a certificate has been given for Rs.5,000/- per month by the employer of the deceased, however, the District Forum has rightly not believed the same because the employer has not submitted any register of monthly payment or has not given any other documents in proof that he was paying Rs.5,000/- per month to the deceased. The District Forum, therefore, only accepted Rs.3000/- as monthly salary of the deceased. The State Commission has accepted the certificate given by the employer and has calculated the compensation on the basis of a monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-, which is not supported by any documentary proof. The deceased was working in a T.V. repairing and cable shop and it was not possible in the year 2002 that he would have got Rs.5,000/- as monthly salary. She further stated that the department could not file any appeal against the order of the District Forum, therefore, the order of the District Forum is binding on the petitioners. The State Commission has awarded excessive compensation and therefore, the same may be set aside.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/complainants stated that the District Forum has not taken employer's certificate of monthly salary of Rs.5,000/- at its face value and has considered only Rs.3,000/- as monthly salary of the deceased. The State Commission has rightly considered the monthly salary as Rs.5,000/- in accordance with the certificate and therefore, there is no shortcoming in the order of the State Commission as the certificate is also supported by employer's affidavit. It is wrong to say that the District Forum has not considered the issue of complainant being a consumer. In fact, the District Forum has given a clear finding that the complainant is a consumer within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. As the petitioners have already accepted the order of the District Forum because no appeal was filed against that order by the petitioners, the question whether the complainants are 'consumers' or not cannot be raised at this stage. The District Forum has rightly answered this question and has reached to the right conclusion that the complainants are consumers. This issue has been considered by this Commission in FA No.235 of 2010, Managing Director cum Chairman T.S. Transco (previously known as AP Transco) & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Noorullha Shareef & Ors. and FA No.352 of 2010, Mohd. Noorullha Shareef & Ors. Vs. Managing Director cum Chairman T.S.Transco (previously known as AP Transco) & Ors., decided on 07.03.2018 (NC) and it has been decided that an heir of the victim/ deceased due to electrocution from a live public wire would be a consumer in the context of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, this question does not merit any further examination in the present case.

The only objection of the petitioners is that the District Forum has considered all the factors involved in deciding the compensation and therefore, the State Commission should not have enhanced the compensation. Both the fora below have calculated the compensation on the basis of formula being used to calculate the compensation in a motor accident claim. Only difference is that the District Forum has not accepted the salary certificate issued by the employer and has accepted a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- only instead of Rs.5000/- as given in the employer's certificate. The State Commission, on the other hand, has accepted the employer's certificate in toto and has calculated the compensation treating the age of the complainant as 29 years. The District Forum has observed that the employer has not produced any register to prove that he was actually paying Rs.5,000/- to the deceased. Thus, not accepting the certificate on its face value, the District Forum calculated the compensation on the basis of monthly salary of Rs.3000/- and added some amount for the love and affection of the children towards the deceased. In a way, the observation of the District Forum is also right that apart from the certificate given by the employer, there is no documentary evidence to prove monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-. However, it is also true that the deceased was working as a cable T.V. Technician and therefore, the salary could have definitely been more than Rs.3,000/-. If any estimate is to be made, a salary of Rs.4000/- per month would be a reasonable and probable salary per month for this type of employment in the year 2002. Thus, according to the formula adopted by the State Commission, the compensation comes to Rs.5,76,000/-. If an amount of Rs.24,000/- is added for loss of the love and affection for respondent Nos.2 & 3, the total compensation becomes Rs.6,00,000/-.

Based on the above discussion, the revision petition No.583 of 2012 is partly allowed and the order dated 06.09.2011 of the State Commission is modified to the extent that the compensation would be Rs.6,00,000/- (rupees six lakhs only) instead of Rs.7,20,000/-. Rest of the order of the State Commission is maintained.

No order as to costs for this revision petition.