C.V. Sesha Narasimhacharvulu and Another Vs. A.P. State Electricity Board and Another - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1113247
CourtAndhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Hyderabad
Decided OnJan-25-2001
Case NumberC.D. No. 297 of 1991
JudgeP. RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE DR. (MRS.) MAMATA LAKSHMANNA, MEMBER
AppellantC.V. Sesha Narasimhacharvulu and Another
RespondentA.P. State Electricity Board and Another
Excerpt:
consumer protection act, 1986 - section 14(1)(d) - comparative citation: 2001 (2) cpj 358p. ramakrishnam raju, president: 1. the first complainant is the father while the second complainant is his minor son. the second complainant is aged about 10 years studying 6th class. both of them along with their family members are residing in flat no. 303, markaz apartments, shalivahananagar colony, srinagar colony, hyderabad. opposite parties 1 and 2 who are the a.p. state electricity board and markaz constructions represented by its managing partner erected a transformer on the road margin within inches from the compound wall of the said apartments. the transformer was totally unprotected and unfenced. there were no danger boards. the transformer was erected on a platform 4 feet height. it is easily accessible and approachable both from outside and inside compound. inadvertently stretching hands of any passer-by would just land on the transformer and the children playing inside the compound just climb the top of the transfer with least effort. the conductors were left unsheathed and unsleeved. the complainants occupied their flat in june, 1988 whereas the transformer was charged somewhere around july, 1989. 2. while so on 23.9.1990 at about 9.45 a.m. the second complainant was plying the kite in the compound of the apartments and the kite got stuck up on the transformer. the boy wanted to release the kite from the transformer. as it did not come out by pulling the thread the innocent boy stepped up to the closest vicinity of the high- tension wires in the mesh of which his kite get stuck up and stretched his hand to take his kite. there was big bang and the power was cut off. the residents of apartments came out and found that the boy was caught amidst intense sparks and flames. as he was thrown down on the floor inside the compound burning his left hand and leaving intense burn injuries on the right of his chest and all over his right hand. he also sustained cut injuries on the forehead due to fall. the boy became unconscious, blood was coming out from the wounds on the forehead and froth was coming out of his mouth. the first complainant was at his office in jeedimetla at that time and on receiving the phone call he rushed back. meanwhile other residents of the apartments rushed the boy to nizam institute of medical sciences (nims) at panjagutta. but the nims refused to admit the boy as it was a case of burns and advised them to take the boy to st. theresa hospital. there also they refused to admit the boy but on request they administered ‘tetanus and advised them to take the boy either to gandhi or osmania hospital where burns wards are available. accordingly the boy was taken to gandhi hospital by about 12.00 noon. sutures were put for the head injury and he was sent to the female burns ward at about 2.00 p.m. where he was put on i.v. fluids. the doctors there, attending on the boy could not give any assurance of survival of the boy but said that the left hand had to be amputated to save the boy and posted for surgery on 27.9.1990. at the instance of their well wishers boy was shifted to apollo hospitals at about 12.00 noon for better treatment and conducted amputation of the left hand above the elbow to save the boy. he was treated up to 2.10.1990 and number of times blood transfusion was administered during this time. the boy was then shifted to banjara hospital, road no. 1, banjara hills where further treatment would be continued at less expenses. at this hospital the boy was operated again to remove dead tissues and it became inevitable to remove about 2 to 3 inches more above the elbow. on 21.10.1990 skin grafting operation was conducted to close up his stump. on the same night his maternal grand-father had expired being unable to bear the pain and the loss caused to his grand-son. the boy was taken to the physiotherapy regularly thrice a week for two months after he was discharged from banjara hills hospital on 5.11.1990 and artificial limb was arranged which has to be changed periodically depending on the growth of the boy. 3. this ghastly accident occurred due to indifferent and remiss attitude of the opposite parties who failed even to provide a fencing and danger boards to the transformer. markaz apartments owners association had written a letter dated 26.9.1990 to the first opposite party with a copy to the second opposite party requesting them to provide fencing and put up danger boards. as there was no response from the opposite parties the flat owners association convened a meeting wherein the members expressed their deep concern for providing safety measures like fencing around the transformer and agreed to follow up the issue with the additional assistant engineer which was finally provided only in december, 1990. 4. it is stated that negligence and recklessness in discharging their obligation on the part of both the opposite parties is beyond any doubt in not providing necessary protection around the transformer after one year after erection and for about 3 months after the occurrence. the boy was endowed with rare intellect and superior abilities and the entire family has a great expectation of bright future for the boy which was shattered because of this ghastly accident. as the boy has to put up with this handicap and he may not be able to attend the heights in his life as he would have otherwise reached, a sum of rs. 5 lakhs with interest till payment together with expenditure incurred for treatment of the boy is claimed. 5. separate counter affidavits are filed by opposite parties 1 and 2. in the counter affidavit filed by first opposite party it is denied that the transformer installed at the markaz apartments is left unprotected without a danger board. fencing was made around the transformer structure. hence there is no negligence on the part of this opposite party. as it is admitted that the boy climbed the platform to retrieve his kite from the bushings of the transformer accident must have occurred purely due to the carelessness on the part of the victim and negligence on the part of the parents as it is the primary duty of the parents to teach the children about the dangers of electricity and h.t. lines. since the transformer was fed from h.t. feeder, even though bushings were well insulated there is possibility of electricity charge over the insulation. but for the measures such as insulation of the bushings the accident would have caused the life of the victim. it is stated that the distance between the compound wall and the transformer and its height, railings etc., are matters for the second opposite party and the first opposite party is not liable for compensation for the loss due to negligence on the part of the victim complainant and the builder. it is finally stated that there is no basis for arriving at the figure of rs. 5,42,912.59 ps. as compensation by the complainants. 6. the second opposite party in its counter stated that erection, commissioning, charging of the transformer was the sole responsibility of the first opposite party. the transformer was erected, commissioned and charged after the flats were sold to the purchasers after constructing the compound wall and the transformer was erected outside the premises of markaz apartments at a location not selected by him. he is not responsible for the accident. it is also stated that no notice was issued to him before filing the complaint. 7. on behalf of the complainants p.ws. 1 and 2 were examined besides marking exs. al to a24. reply affidavit of the second complainant was also filed. on behalf of the opposite parties r.ws. 1 to 3 were examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties. 8. the point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency on the part of either or both of the opposite parties, if so, to what relief ? 9. the admitted facts are that the second complainant is the minor son of the first complainant who is aged about 9 years studying 6th class was playing with kite in the compound of markaz apartments being the residents of flat no. 303 on 23.9.1990 and as ill-luck would have it the kite got stuck up in the transformer which is located outside the compound wall in the road1 margin but very close to the compound wall. the innocent boy with a view to retrieve the kite climbed the platform of the transformer stretched his hand near the live wires and came into contact with one of them by which he was thrown down burning his left hand which ultimately resulted in amputation of the hand up to the elbow joint. series of operations were conducted to save the boy. 10. the complainants allege that there was no fencing nor danger boards to the said transformer erected and commissioned by the first opposite party at the behest of the second opposite party resulted in the ghastly accident due to which the second complainant had to go with permanent disability throughout his life and thereby the high expectation of brilliant future of the boy has been shattered. therefore, the complainants claimed a sum of rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation together with interest and expenditure. 11. though the break-up of the claim under different heads was not given in the original complaint filed but later the break-up under different heads was given in the reply affidavit filed by the first complainant. the bone of contention of the complainants seems to be that the transformer which was erected, commissioned and charged by the opposite parties was left unguarded without any fencing or danger which resulted in the accident in question. therefore, the question is whether both or any of the opposite parties is negligent in taking appropriate precautions or safety measures near the transformer. the counter affidavit filed by the second opposite party shows that he was the builder of markaz apartments and the flats were sold and possession was delivered much before the transformer was erected, commissioned and charged. it is also the contention of the second opposite party that the transformer was erected outside the compound of the apartments in question. markaz apartments owners association was also formed by the date of accident and association is looking after the welfare of its members. therefore, we are of the opinion that the second opposite party can no more be held responsible for the accident in question which occurred after the flats were sold and possession delivered to the owners, more so after the owners association was formed. it is relevant to mention at this juncture that in the minutes of the meeting of the members of the owners association dated 10.11.1990 marked as ex. a-13 it is recorded that the additional assistant engineer has agreed to provide fencing around the transformer on the condition that the cost of mesh shall be borne by the association which was agreed to in the interest of the apartment residents. from this it is clear that the primary responsibility of providing amenities and safeguards for the welfare of the members of the association rests with the association after its formation. therefore, we are of the view that in the absence of any agreement or showing responsibility on the part of the second opposite party we do not think that there is any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party no. 2 in this regard. the mere fact that it has made the necessary application for obtaining sanction for erection of the transformer does not clothe with the responsibility as alleged by the complainant. 12. the next question is whether the first opposite party owes any duty to erect the transformer in such a way as to avoid slightest damage that might be caused or which is likely to be caused to the residents or others. there is no denial of such responsibility. no doubt the first opposite party denies that the transformer was without any fencing. it is emphatically stated in the counter affidavit that fencing was also made around the transformer structure. it has to be seen whether this allegation is true. the owners association issued a letter dated 26.9.1990 to the additional assistant engineer under ex. a6 stating that one transformer was erected adjacent to the gate in front of their apartments. no fencing or danger board were provided thereto. a reference of this letter is also made in the complaint. there was no denial about the despatch or receipt of the said letter by the first opposite party. as such the factum of issuance of the said letter cannot be doubted. this letter in our view issued within a few days of the accident when the complainants were seriously involved in the resurrecting and treatment of the second complainant in the hospitals as such this letter amenating from a disinterested body is entitled to great weight, as there is no need for the association to make a false statement at that juncture when their main concern and anxiety was only to prevent recurrence of such incident in future. therefore, the allegation in the counter affidavit that there was fencing around the transformer is false. 13. it is needless to state that the first respondent who has the power and authority to sanction a transformer has to insist on safety measures as condition precedent before according the sanction for erection and commission. it should have at least verified the ground reality at the time of inspection by its officers before actually charging the transformer. evidently this was not done. therefore, we are of the opinion that the first opposite party which has the responsibility of ensuring safety of the public before charging a transformer of this nature should have insisted on the precautionary measures which are lacking in this case. therefore, the first opposite party has committed deficiency of service. we are fortified in our view that the first opposite party did not act with promptness even after the accident occurred in responding to initiate the steps for providing safety measures. although the owners association has addressed a letter as early as possible on 26.9.1990 no steps were taken to provide necessary fencing to the transformer until december, 1990 i.e., for about 3 months which is nothing but deficiency of service on their part, more so when the transformer is meant for supply of power to these apartments only. the next question is about the quantum of compensation to which the first complainant is entitled to. 14. the first complainant is the father of the second complainant. he admits in categorical terms as p.w. 1 that neither himself nor his wife or other inmates has warned the children not to climb the transformer as they did not expect them to do so. he has also admitted that he has not specifically instructed his child not to go near the electric transformer. he is not only a member of the owners association but had been an office bearer too. he did not think of taking any steps to enclose the transformer with a mesh. the association also has done nothing in this regard before the accident. they woke up only after the accident and immediately hastened to despatch the letter dated 26.9.1990. therefore, the complainant in our view has not discharged the obligation on his part and as such he is not entitled to any compensation since he has failed to take minimum steps that are required to safeguard the welfare of his child to say the least both as parent and as an office bearer of the owners association. he failed to address a letter to the first opposite party about the imminent danger of leaving the transformer unguarded. it is also curious to note that he has not even given any complaint before the police as admitted by him. it is also seen that no notice was issued to the first opposite party immediately after the accident until 23.11.1991 i.e., over a period of two months. in view of this we are also not happy with the way in which he discharged his obligation. therefore, we are of the opinion that he is not entitled to any compensation. 15. the next question is what is the quantum of compensation the second complainant is entitled to. 16. the second complainant is a boy of 9 years studying 6th class. as per the break—up given along with the reply affidavit of the first complainant a sum of rs. 3,00,000/- is claimed towards permanent disability of the boy and a further sum of rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony, pain and suffering apart from claiming medical expenses, loss of salary of the first complainant and expenses incurred for providing artificial limb. 17. it is a case where the boy has innocently climbed up the platform of 4” and wanted to retrieve the kite and in this process came into contact with a live wire which resulted in this unfortunate accident. the parents who should have apprised the boy of serious consequences in case he goes any where near the transformer have failed to educate him. the boy also who is studying 6th class should have known the danger of going near the transformer. but having regard to his age it is not possible to hold that every boy of 9 years would certainly know the consequences. even giving allowance to the knowledge and understanding abilities of the boy though stated that he is very brilliant in his academic career still we are of the opinion that no negligence can be attributed to the boy. but as there is definitely negligence on the part of the parents we are of the opinion that there is contributory negligence by both the parents on one side as well as the first opposite party on the other. having regard to this we are of the opinion that entire burden cannot be placed on the first opposite party alone. under these circumstances we have to apportion the blame between them equally. viewed in this manner we are of the opinion that a sum of rs. 75,000/- towards permanent disability and a sum of rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and pain making up a round figure of rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation to the second complainant would meet the ends of justice. 18. so far as the medical expenses of rs. 36,366/- for which there is ample proof by way of records as well as the expenditure of rs. 5,150/- for providing artificial limb and also loss of salary of first complainant of rs. 6,546.50 ps. cannot be disputed. these sums in our view are reasonable and, therefore, they have to be allowed. accordingly the first opposite party is directed to pay a sum of rs. 1,47,967.50 (rs. 1,00,000/- + 36,366/- + 5,150/- + 6,546.50 ps.) rounded to rs. 1,48,000/- with interest @ 12% from the date of the registered notice dated 23.11.1991 till the date of payment. 19. we would have allowed costs of rs. 5,000/- but in the circumstances costs are also reduced to proportionate sum of rs. 2,000/-. 20. the first opposite party is directed to pay both the sums i.e., rs. 1,48,000/- and costs of rs. 2,000/- within a period of six weeks from today. the complaint against the second opposite party is dismissed. the complaint is accordingly allowed in part as indicated above against the first opposite party. the complaint is dismissed against the 2nd opposite party but without costs. complaint partly allowed.
Judgment:

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, President:

1. The first complainant is the father while the second complainant is his minor son. The second complainant is aged about 10 years studying 6th class. Both of them along with their family members are residing in Flat No. 303, Markaz Apartments, Shalivahananagar Colony, Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad. Opposite parties 1 and 2 who are the A.P. State Electricity Board and Markaz Constructions represented by its Managing Partner erected a transformer on the road margin within inches from the compound wall of the said apartments. The transformer was totally unprotected and unfenced. There were no danger boards. The transformer was erected on a platform 4 feet height. It is easily accessible and approachable both from outside and inside compound. Inadvertently stretching hands of any passer-by would just land on the transformer and the children playing inside the compound just climb the top of the transfer with least effort. The conductors were left unsheathed and unsleeved. The complainants occupied their flat in June, 1988 whereas the transformer was charged somewhere around July, 1989.

2. While so on 23.9.1990 at about 9.45 a.m. the second complainant was plying the kite in the compound of the apartments and the kite got stuck up on the transformer. The boy wanted to release the kite from the transformer. As it did not come out by pulling the thread the innocent boy stepped up to the closest vicinity of the high- tension wires in the mesh of which his kite get stuck up and stretched his hand to take his kite. There was big bang and the power was cut off. The residents of apartments came out and found that the boy was caught amidst intense sparks and flames. As he was thrown down on the floor inside the compound burning his left hand and leaving intense burn injuries on the right of his chest and all over his right hand. He also sustained cut injuries on the forehead due to fall. The boy became unconscious, blood was coming out from the wounds on the forehead and froth was coming out of his mouth. The first complainant was at his office in Jeedimetla at that time and on receiving the phone call he rushed back. Meanwhile other residents of the apartments rushed the boy to Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences (NIMS) at Panjagutta. But the NIMS refused to admit the boy as it was a case of burns and advised them to take the boy to St. Theresa Hospital. There also they refused to admit the boy but on request they administered ‘Tetanus and advised them to take the boy either to Gandhi or Osmania Hospital where burns wards are available. Accordingly the boy was taken to Gandhi Hospital by about 12.00 noon. Sutures were put for the head injury and he was sent to the female burns ward at about 2.00 p.m. where he was put on I.V. Fluids. The doctors there, attending on the boy could not give any assurance of survival of the boy but said that the left hand had to be amputated to save the boy and posted for surgery on 27.9.1990. At the instance of their well wishers boy was shifted to Apollo Hospitals at about 12.00 noon for better treatment and conducted amputation of the left hand above the elbow to save the boy. He was treated up to 2.10.1990 and number of times blood transfusion was administered during this time. The boy was then shifted to Banjara Hospital, Road No. 1, Banjara Hills where further treatment would be continued at less expenses. At this hospital the boy was operated again to remove dead tissues and it became inevitable to remove about 2 to 3 inches more above the elbow. On 21.10.1990 skin grafting operation was conducted to close up his stump. On the same night his maternal grand-father had expired being unable to bear the pain and the loss caused to his grand-son. The boy was taken to the physiotherapy regularly thrice a week for two months after he was discharged from Banjara Hills Hospital on 5.11.1990 and artificial limb was arranged which has to be changed periodically depending on the growth of the boy.

3. This ghastly accident occurred due to indifferent and remiss attitude of the opposite parties who failed even to provide a fencing and danger boards to the transformer. Markaz Apartments Owners Association had written a letter dated 26.9.1990 to the first opposite party with a copy to the second opposite party requesting them to provide fencing and put up danger boards. As there was no response from the opposite parties the Flat Owners Association convened a meeting wherein the members expressed their deep concern for providing safety measures like fencing around the transformer and agreed to follow up the issue with the Additional Assistant Engineer which was finally provided only in December, 1990.

4. It is stated that negligence and recklessness in discharging their obligation on the part of both the opposite parties is beyond any doubt in not providing necessary protection around the transformer after one year after erection and for about 3 months after the occurrence. The boy was endowed with rare intellect and superior abilities and the entire family has a great expectation of bright future for the boy which was shattered because of this ghastly accident. As the boy has to put up with this handicap and he may not be able to attend the heights in his life as he would have otherwise reached, a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs with interest till payment together with expenditure incurred for treatment of the boy is claimed.

5. Separate counter affidavits are filed by opposite parties 1 and 2. In the counter affidavit filed by first opposite party it is denied that the transformer installed at the Markaz Apartments is left unprotected without a danger board. Fencing was made around the transformer structure. Hence there is no negligence on the part of this opposite party. As it is admitted that the boy climbed the platform to retrieve his kite from the bushings of the transformer accident must have occurred purely due to the carelessness on the part of the victim and negligence on the part of the parents as it is the primary duty of the parents to teach the children about the dangers of electricity and H.T. lines. Since the transformer was fed from H.T. feeder, even though bushings were well insulated there is possibility of electricity charge over the insulation. But for the measures such as insulation of the bushings the accident would have caused the life of the victim. It is stated that the distance between the compound wall and the transformer and its height, railings etc., are matters for the second opposite party and the first opposite party is not liable for compensation for the loss due to negligence on the part of the victim complainant and the builder. It is finally stated that there is no basis for arriving at the figure of Rs. 5,42,912.59 ps. as compensation by the complainants.

6. The second opposite party in its counter stated that erection, commissioning, charging of the transformer was the sole responsibility of the first opposite party. The transformer was erected, commissioned and charged after the flats were sold to the purchasers after constructing the compound wall and the transformer was erected outside the premises of Markaz Apartments at a location not selected by him. He is not responsible for the accident. It is also stated that no notice was issued to him before filing the complaint.

7. On behalf of the complainants P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined besides marking Exs. Al to A24. Reply affidavit of the second complainant was also filed. On behalf of the opposite parties R.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and no documents are marked on behalf of the opposite parties.

8. The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency on the part of either or both of the opposite parties, if so, to what relief ?

9. The admitted facts are that the second complainant is the minor son of the first complainant who is aged about 9 years studying 6th class was playing with kite in the compound of Markaz Apartments being the residents of flat No. 303 on 23.9.1990 and as ill-luck would have it the kite got stuck up in the transformer which is located outside the compound wall in the road1 margin but very close to the compound wall. The innocent boy with a view to retrieve the kite climbed the platform of the transformer stretched his hand near the live wires and came into contact with one of them by which he was thrown down burning his left hand which ultimately resulted in amputation of the hand up to the elbow joint. Series of operations were conducted to save the boy.

10. The complainants allege that there was no fencing nor danger boards to the said transformer erected and commissioned by the first opposite party at the behest of the second opposite party resulted in the ghastly accident due to which the second complainant had to go with permanent disability throughout his life and thereby the high expectation of brilliant future of the boy has been shattered. Therefore, the complainants claimed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards compensation together with interest and expenditure.

11. Though the break-up of the claim under different heads was not given in the original complaint filed but later the break-up under different heads was given in the reply affidavit filed by the first complainant. The bone of contention of the complainants seems to be that the transformer which was erected, commissioned and charged by the opposite parties was left unguarded without any fencing or danger which resulted in the accident in question. Therefore, the question is whether both or any of the opposite parties is negligent in taking appropriate precautions or safety measures near the transformer. The counter affidavit filed by the second opposite party shows that he was the builder of Markaz Apartments and the flats were sold and possession was delivered much before the transformer was erected, commissioned and charged. It is also the contention of the second opposite party that the transformer was erected outside the compound of the apartments in question. Markaz Apartments Owners Association was also formed by the date of accident and association is looking after the welfare of its members. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the second opposite party can no more be held responsible for the accident in question which occurred after the flats were sold and possession delivered to the owners, more so after the owners association was formed. It is relevant to mention at this juncture that in the minutes of the meeting of the members of the owners association dated 10.11.1990 marked as Ex. A-13 it is recorded that the Additional Assistant Engineer has agreed to provide fencing around the transformer on the condition that the cost of mesh shall be borne by the association which was agreed to in the interest of the apartment residents. From this it is clear that the primary responsibility of providing amenities and safeguards for the welfare of the members of the association rests with the association after its formation. Therefore, we are of the view that in the absence of any agreement or showing responsibility on the part of the second opposite party we do not think that there is any negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No. 2 in this regard. The mere fact that it has made the necessary application for obtaining sanction for erection of the transformer does not clothe with the responsibility as alleged by the complainant.

12. The next question is whether the first opposite party owes any duty to erect the transformer in such a way as to avoid slightest damage that might be caused or which is likely to be caused to the residents or others. There is no denial of such responsibility. No doubt the first opposite party denies that the transformer was without any fencing. It is emphatically stated in the counter affidavit that fencing was also made around the transformer structure. It has to be seen whether this allegation is true. The owners association issued a letter dated 26.9.1990 to the Additional Assistant Engineer under Ex. A6 stating that one transformer was erected adjacent to the gate in front of their apartments. No fencing or danger board were provided thereto. A reference of this letter is also made in the complaint. There was no denial about the despatch or receipt of the said letter by the first opposite party. As such the factum of issuance of the said letter cannot be doubted. This letter in our view issued within a few days of the accident when the complainants were seriously involved in the resurrecting and treatment of the second complainant in the hospitals as such this letter amenating from a disinterested body is entitled to great weight, as there is no need for the association to make a false statement at that juncture when their main concern and anxiety was only to prevent recurrence of such incident in future. Therefore, the allegation in the counter affidavit that there was fencing around the transformer is false.

13. It is needless to state that the first respondent who has the power and authority to sanction a transformer has to insist on safety measures as condition precedent before according the sanction for erection and commission. It should have at least verified the ground reality at the time of inspection by its Officers before actually charging the transformer. Evidently this was not done. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the first opposite party which has the responsibility of ensuring safety of the public before charging a transformer of this nature should have insisted on the precautionary measures which are lacking in this case. Therefore, the first opposite party has committed deficiency of service. We are fortified in our view that the first opposite party did not act with promptness even after the accident occurred in responding to initiate the steps for providing safety measures. Although the Owners Association has addressed a letter as early as possible on 26.9.1990 no steps were taken to provide necessary fencing to the transformer until December, 1990 i.e., for about 3 months which is nothing but deficiency of service on their part, more so when the transformer is meant for supply of power to these apartments only.

The next question is about the quantum of compensation to which the first complainant is entitled to.

14. The first complainant is the father of the second complainant. He admits in categorical terms as P.W. 1 that neither himself nor his wife or other inmates has warned the children not to climb the transformer as they did not expect them to do so. He has also admitted that he has not specifically instructed his child not to go near the electric transformer. He is not only a member of the Owners Association but had been an office bearer too. He did not think of taking any steps to enclose the transformer with a mesh. The association also has done nothing in this regard before the accident. They woke up only after the accident and immediately hastened to despatch the letter dated 26.9.1990. Therefore, the complainant in our view has not discharged the obligation on his part and as such he is not entitled to any compensation since he has failed to take minimum steps that are required to safeguard the welfare of his child to say the least both as parent and as an office bearer of the Owners Association. He failed to address a letter to the first opposite party about the imminent danger of leaving the transformer unguarded. It is also curious to note that he has not even given any complaint before the police as admitted by him. It is also seen that no notice was issued to the first opposite party immediately after the accident until 23.11.1991 i.e., over a period of two months. In view of this we are also not happy with the way in which he discharged his obligation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that he is not entitled to any compensation.

15. The next question is what is the quantum of compensation the second complainant is entitled to.

16. The second complainant is a boy of 9 years studying 6th class. As per the break—up given along with the reply affidavit of the first complainant a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- is claimed towards permanent disability of the boy and a further sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony, pain and suffering apart from claiming medical expenses, loss of salary of the first complainant and expenses incurred for providing artificial limb.

17. It is a case where the boy has innocently climbed up the platform of 4” and wanted to retrieve the kite and in this process came into contact with a live wire which resulted in this unfortunate accident. The parents who should have apprised the boy of serious consequences in case he goes any where near the transformer have failed to educate him. The boy also who is studying 6th class should have known the danger of going near the transformer. But having regard to his age it is not possible to hold that every boy of 9 years would certainly know the consequences. Even giving allowance to the knowledge and understanding abilities of the boy though stated that he is very brilliant in his academic career still we are of the opinion that no negligence can be attributed to the boy. But as there is definitely negligence on the part of the parents we are of the opinion that there is contributory negligence by both the parents on one side as well as the first opposite party on the other. Having regard to this we are of the opinion that entire burden cannot be placed on the first opposite party alone. Under these circumstances we have to apportion the blame between them equally. Viewed in this manner we are of the opinion that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards permanent disability and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and pain making up a round figure of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of compensation to the second complainant would meet the ends of justice.

18. So far as the medical expenses of Rs. 36,366/- for which there is ample proof by way of records as well as the expenditure of Rs. 5,150/- for providing artificial limb and also loss of salary of first complainant of Rs. 6,546.50 ps. cannot be disputed. These sums in our view are reasonable and, therefore, they have to be allowed. Accordingly the first opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,47,967.50 (Rs. 1,00,000/- + 36,366/- + 5,150/- + 6,546.50 ps.) rounded to Rs. 1,48,000/- with interest @ 12% from the date of the registered notice dated 23.11.1991 till the date of payment.

19. We would have allowed costs of Rs. 5,000/- but in the circumstances costs are also reduced to proportionate sum of Rs. 2,000/-.

20. The first opposite party is directed to pay both the sums i.e., Rs. 1,48,000/- and costs of Rs. 2,000/- within a period of six weeks from today. The complaint against the second opposite party is dismissed.

The complaint is accordingly allowed in part as indicated above against the first opposite party. The complaint is dismissed against the 2nd opposite party but without costs.

Complaint partly allowed.