‘Cooked up story’: Telangana consumer commission reverses Rs 2 lakh award, warns district body over ‘sympathy’ ruling

“At this juncture we express our deprecation to the District Commission Adilabad not to pass such type orders mechanically without appreciating the material borne by the record i.e. pleadings and evidence. We hope that the District Commission Adilabad will follow our advice,” the state commission said on March 25.

The state consumer commission said it “does not assimilate” the findings of the district consumer commission, describing them as perverse and unsustainable. (Image enhanced using AI)

‘Cooked up story’ for compensation

In a sharp observation, the state consumer commission held that the allegation of electrocution appeared to be a “cooked up story prepared only to get ex-gratia illegally.” It emphasised that liability cannot be fastened on a public utility in the absence of credible and corroborative evidence establishing negligence and causation.

After examining the entire record, the state consumer commission found critical gaps in the complainant’s case. It noted that the complainant was not an eyewitness and had only expressed suspicion regarding the cause of death.

The state commission set aside the 2019 order of the district commission, Adilabad, observing that it was passed “without any iota of evidence” and failed to properly assess the material on record.

The bench allowed an appeal filed by the TSNPDCL and quashed the December 18, 2019 order that had directed payment of Rs 2 lakh compensation with 7 per cent interest to the mother of a deceased cattle grazer.

Even the FIR stated that the deceased “might have touched” an electric wire or died due to “some other reason,” reflecting uncertainty.

Further, the commission observed that neither the inquest report nor the postmortem examination confirmed electrocution as the cause of death.

On the other hand, the departmental inquiry report based on site inspection and local verification concluded that no electrical incident had taken place.

Deprecation of district commission

The commission expressed strong disapproval of the district consumer commission’s approach.
It stated that the lower forum had passed the order “mechanically” without appreciating pleadings and evidence, and cautioned that such practices undermine the integrity of adjudication.

The state consumer commission said it “does not assimilate” the findings of the district consumer commission, describing them as perverse and unsustainable.

Background: Death allegedly due to electrocution

The case stemmed from the death of 26-year-old Gundaveni Dattu on October 21, 2015, in Adilabad district. His mother, Gundaveni Lasum Bai, alleged that her son died after coming into contact with a live electric wire while grazing cattle near the S.P. Camp office.

According to the complaint, the deceased was earning around Rs 12,000 per month and supporting the family. The complainant attributed the death to negligence on the part of electricity department officials, alleging failure to maintain proper infrastructure.

The key issue before the state commission was whether the district commission’s finding that the electricity department was negligent and liable to pay compensation was supported by evidence, or whether the order suffered from legal and factual errors warranting it to be set aside.

Relief granted by district commission

In December 2019, the district commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the electricity department to pay Rs 2 lakh along with 7 per cent interest from the date of death and Rs 2,000 as litigation costs.

The order effectively held the department liable for deficiency in service, though it did not award additional damages beyond the ex-gratia compensation.

Appeal by TSNPDCL

Challenging the order, TSNPDCL argued that the district consumer commission had acted on sympathy rather than evidence. It contended that no electrocution incident had been reported to the department.

A field inspection by its engineering staff found no evidence of electrical fault. Local inquiries indicated that the death was not caused by electrocution.

The utility maintained that the complaint was baseless and aimed at securing compensation without proof.

Final order

Allowing the appeal, the state consumer commission set aside the December 18, 2019 order in its entirety and held that the complainant was not entitled to any compensation.

“There is no order as to costs,” the commission said while pronouncing its judgment on March 25, 2026.