West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/469/2014

Banani Bikram Wife of Bapi Bikram. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Director, W.B. State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Bidyut Bhavan. - Opp.Party(s)

22 Apr 2015

ORDER

     DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

C.C. CASE NO. _469_ OF ___2014_____

 

DATE OF FILING : 18.9.2014     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 22.4.2015__

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Dr. (Mrs.)  Shibani Chakraborty

                                                                                          

COMPLAINANT             :  Banani Bikram,w/o Bapi Bikram, Dakshin Purba Para, Chandranagar,

          Kakdwip, P.S. Kakdwip, Dist. South 24-Parganas.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :    1. Director, W.B State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Bidyut

Bhawan, Salt Lake City, Kolkata.

2.     Executive Engineer (Station Mg.), W.B State Electricity Distribution Company, Diamond Harbour, Group Electric Supply Vill. &P.O Madhavpur, P.S. Diamond Harbour, Pin 743331.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President                                    

            It is the short case of the complainant that she is an unfortunate widow having lost her husband at the tender age.

            The positive case of the complainant is that the complainant along with her husband went to the paternal house of the complainant to take part in a social ceremony on 18.6.2013 , when Electricity Distribution Company , Diamond Harbour was laying cable line as a programme of Electricity Supply in that area and adjoining villages. But the O.Ps, Electricity Company, had kept the high tension wire open and scattered not only althrough the road side but the wires remained open on the last pole for few days.

            After completion of the function , when the complainant and her family were returning , the husband of the complainant came in contact with unguarded live wires kept loosely shunted on the wayside    and died instantly . The Post Mortem Report confirmed the death by electrocution. The death occurred due to callous and negligent approach by keeping the live wires open by the State Electricity Board.  Complainant has filed this praying for compensation.

            The O.Ps contested the case by filing written version and have denied all the allegations leveled against them.

            It is the positive case of the O.Ps that the company has no knowledge about the tragic accident and for the first time came to know from the complaint filed in the District Forum and after obtaining copy thereof. It has stated that there was no report to the Company  concerned , Customer Care Centre that the victim came in touch with snatched wire of High Tension line and at the spot at Dhanberia and succumbed to injury. It has further stated that question of compensation does not arise at all sine there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the Company, WBSEDCL and this instant case cannot be attracted to any negligence or laches on the part of the O.P. Accordingly it prays for dismissal of the complaint, since there is no deficiency on the part of the O.Ps.

            Points for consideration in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

                                                            Decision with reasons

            First of all , we find that in view of the decision of Hon’ble National Commission as reported in IV 2008 CPJ 139 NC holding that villagers pay tax to Village Panchayet and power consumption charges to the Electricity Company. Hence, they are consumers.

            In the instant case  we find that one Kamal Bikram who happens to be the father of Bapi Bikram, paid tax to the Panchayet . Definitely he is the head man of the family ,otherewise the O.P WBSEDCL would have raised serious objection in the matter. Thus we hold that the complainant is a consumer.

            In the instant case we find that complainant along with her husband went to the paternal house of the complainant to take part in a ceremony on 18.6.2013 and at the same time WBSEDCL, was engaged in laying cable line as a programme of electricity supply in that area and adjoining premises but we find that due to serious negligence of the O.P WBSEDCL  they had kept high tension wire open and the wire were lying scattered not only allthrough the roadside but were remained open on the last pole for few days , for which complainant’s husband being an innocent person while returning from paternal house came to a contact with unguarded life wires ,kept callously and thereby complainant’s husband succumbed to injury by electrocution. In order to prove the cause of death complainant has filed post mortem report, wherein it appears that death was due to the effect of electrocution. As noted it is antimortem in nature.  So, we have nothing to disbelieve the Post Mortem report which has been prepared by Medical Officer who has no inimical relationship with the O.P WBSEDCL. It is well known to us that when the works of Electric Department is going on, necessary safety and security should be taken by the authority concerned but nothing was taken in the said village. So, until and unless such installations are properly and securely maintained, there were no safety hazards to consumer/public and in case of any accident arisen out of the said electric wires, O.P cannot avoid its responsibility to compensate the victim, particularly when, the O.P had quite vigilant about proper maintenance of electric wire and if it was happened then definitely the accident would not have taken place. This is gross negligence.

            Now, we find that complainant is entitled to get compensation due to unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

            It is very much astonished that O.P has taken a plea that they were not aware about the incident and first time came to know after receiving the copy of the complaint. Sitting in a chair of Forum we must say that this is another deficiency in service particularly when their men and officers who were engaged should inform the company about the incident where due to electrocution a life of a human body was taken away.

            In this juncture we have to point out that Hon’ble    National Commission has taken the same view in Revision Petition no.3391 of 2012 where one Buffalo died on the spot due to electrocution and in that case Hon’ble National Commission directed to comply the order of the District Forum within a period of 30 days and set aside the order of the Hon’ble State Commission and affirmed the order passed by the Hon’ble District Forum which was based on evidence on affidavit of the petitioner and

 

the report of the Veterinary Certificate. So, the intention of the Legislature is very much clear that if any person or animal died due to electrocution the entire liability is upon the O.Ps and they have no scope to escape from that liability of negligence because the incident was caused due to their sheer negligence and callousness for non-maintaining the electric wires.

            Accordingly, we are relying the reported decisions in (i) S.C. case no.FA/843/13 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal. (ii)  S.C. case no.FA/455/2012 passed by the Hon’ble State Commission, West Bengal as well as Hon’ble State Commission, Chandigarh in Appeal Case no.3779/01/RBT/HRY/1073/2008 and Hon’ble State Commission of Hariyana in First Appeal no.653 and 862 of 2014  and Hon’ble National Commission in First Appeal no.103/07 etc.  

            Thus the totality of the circumstances clearly suggests that the complainant is entitled to get compensation particularly when the O.Ps have failed to produce any believable evidence that the cause of death of complainant’s husband was otherwise than by electrocution as claimed by the complainant. The O.Ps wanted to shift their responsibility to the other Civil Authorities like Panchayet etc. who are maintaining the road side light but fact remains that the ultimate responsibility was upon the O.Ps whose men and officers are maintaining and conducting the works of laying cable . They cannot shift their responsibility to other authorities who have no access over the said work, for which our Hon’ble State  Commission and Hon’ble National Commission and other State Commissions also have opined in the same view that O.Ps i.e. Electricity Authority are responsible for that cause of death when it is due to electrocution.

            Thus, we find that the complainant has been able to prove his case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

            Now the question is what would be the amount of compensation.

            From the Post Mortem report we find that age of deceased Bapi Bikram was 21 years. So, multiplier will be 17 and notionally the income of Bapi Bikram is Rs.36000/- per month ,although it has claimed that his monthly income was Rs.4000/- per month as he was working under a Civil Contractor  but no such document is produced showing the income of Rs.4000/- per month. So, it would be safe if we hold that his income was Rs.36000/- per month which is his notional income. So, if the deceased was alive, he could have spent one third of his income for his own. So, after deducting the one third income net income i.e. two third income of Rs.36000/- comes to Rs.24000/- which he can spend for his family members . The difference of loss of income of the family is Rs.24000/- x 17 = Rs.4,08,000/-  which is the actual amount of compensation. Apart from that complainant is entitled to get funeral expenses of Rs.2000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-. Thus the total compensation comes to Rs.4,12,000/-. Besides that complainant will not get anything in this case.

            Hence,

                                                            Ordered

That the application filed under section 12 of the C.P Act is allowed on contest.

O.Ps are directed to pay compensation as well as loss of income amounting to Rs.4,08,000/- and funeral charges of Rs.2000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-  ,totaling to Rs.4,15,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum and in that event O.Ps have to bear further interest @8% p.a from the date of passing order till its realization.

O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund for their unfair trade practice within 45 days from the date of this order.

   

            Let a plain copy of this order  be sent to the O.Ps through this Forum and one copy be handed over to the complainant free of cost.

 

                                                Member                                               President

 

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

 

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

 

Ordered

That the application filed under section 12 of the C.P Act is allowed on contest.

O.Ps are directed to pay compensation as well as loss of income amounting to Rs.4,08,000/- and funeral charges of Rs.2000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/-  ,totaling to Rs.4,15,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum and in that event O.Ps have to bear further interest @8% p.a from the date of passing order till its realization.

O.Ps are also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund for their unfair trade practice within 45 days from the date of this order.

   

            Let a plain copy of this order  be sent to the O.Ps through this Forum and one copy be handed over to the complainant free of cost.

 

                                                Member                                               President