West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/561/2014

Namita Roy,Wife of Tapan Roy. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. Director West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pranab Kr. Bhattacharjee.

29 Apr 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144

 

      C.C. CASE NO. _561_ OF ___2014_

 

DATE OF FILING : 19.11.2014                   DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 29.04.2016

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu & Subrata Sarkar

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT        :    Namita Roy w/o Tapan Roy of Vill. Naltala, P.O Kamarpur, P.S. Ramnagar, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin- 743368

 

•  VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :  1. Director, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 64

                                             2.     Station Manager, Sarisa Customer Care Centre, West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. Sarisa (Kalagachia), P.S. Diamond Harbour, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743368.

 

_______________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President

This an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant on the ground that her husband Tapan Roy was a skilled mason and proceeding for his job on 5.3.2014 from her residence at village Naltala under P.S. Diamond Harbour. He has further stated that in Naltala Village and Diamond Harbour Road so many electric posts were installed by the O.P-2 for electrification but due to bad workmanship some of the pillars were in bad condition which were brought to the notice of the O.P-2 by the local people in number of occasions. But he did not pay heed to it ,for which on 5.3.2014 unfortunate accident caused and thereby when her husband was crossing from the Village Naltala at 9.30 a.m suddenly one pillar broke down and stuck her husband Tapan Roy and he was taken to Diamond Harbour Hospital by the local persons wherein he was declared dead. The dead body was post mortem which is enclosed herewith. So, the cause of death is undoubtedly unnatural and accidental in nature and severe negligence on the part of the O.Ps since the O.P did not take any care for safety and security of the local people inspite of information. It has claimed that  her husband was the only earning member and due to loss of her husband they are suffering both mentally and economically. It has claimed that her husband being a mason his income was about Rs.6000/- per month being the sole earning member. The family members are now facing starvation since there is no earning member. Accordingly she prays for compensation to the tune of Rs.10 lacs and further Rs.5 lacs for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

The O.P WBSEDCL is contesting the case by filing written version and the positive case of the O.P is that case is not maintainable in present form and complainant is not a consumer, case is bad for non-joinder of parties. It is the positive case of the O.P that death of the complainant’s husband was caused due to accidental broken down of electric pole which is standing on the public road. So, complainant is not a consumer  and further stated that post mortem clearly shows that husband of the complainant died due to accident. So, there is no deficiency in service by the O.P and the instant case does not come within the purview and four corners  of the C.P Act.  So, there is no prima facie case of negligence on the part of the O.Ps. The O.P denies all the statements and allegations made in the complaint and petitioner is liable to prove the same. It has further stated that there was no negligence on the part of the O.Ps for accidental death of the complainant and furthermore without any police investigation report the complainant cannot make the O.P liable . The O.P categorically states that nature of job of complainant’s husband and the income there from as stated by the complainant is absolutely imaginary and has no basis at all. Hence, the O.P prays for dismissal of the case.;

Points for determination is whether the O.P has any deficiency in service and negligence act which amounts to unfair trade practice and caused to death of the complainant’s husband.

                                                            Decision with reasons

 There is no dispute that untimely death of the complainant’s husband was caused due to fallen down of the electric pole which has been admitted by the O.P by filing written version in para 9 that death of the complainant’s husband was caused due to the accidental broken down of an electric pole which is standing on the public road. So, there is no dispute that death was caused due to broken down of the electric pole standing on the public road and definitely complainant’s husband was a passers by at the relevant point of time of broken down of the electric pole. So, it is not the case of the O.P that cause of death of the husband of the complainant is other than broken down of electric pole, rather the O.P has admitted that cause of death is due to accidental broken down of electric pole.

Now the question is that the victim is consumer or not.

We are aware that beneficiaries are also consumer. Here the rural electrification is being initiated by the local panchayet authority, wherein the villagers pay tax and from that money they brings electricity. It is also known to us that Panchayet Authority has no authority to demarcate the area wherefrom the electric connection will run and Panchayet Authority has no maintenance capacity and all these electric lines as well as poles are being maintained by the O.P . So, due to carelessness and laches of the O.Ps those pole were not maintained properly, for which, it was broken down and complainant’s husband Tapan Roy being a villager is a beneficiary of that electric pole ,for which he is a consumer and Tax were collected by the Panchayet from the villagers.

Be that as it may, it may be argued that no tax receipt is filed but herein the question of non payment of tax is not required to be decided by this Forum. . It is universal truth that villagers have to pay rural tax to the Panchayet authority and Panchayet authority for the betterment of the villagers arranged for electrification of that village and O.P collected necessary expenses from the Panchayet ,that is why the complainant’s husband Tapan Roy has become a consumer/beneficiary like the other villagers.

Now the question is as per submission of the Ld. Senior Advocate of the complainant that definition of negligence have been defined by various authors in various forms from time to time. Electricity cases in the past decade so far available in the year 1967 in Benhum Electricity Board Vs. Nellor which was relied in India by the Hon’ble Apex Court and held the me as judicial legislation and pronounced certain landmark judgment ,one of which was Raman Vs. Uttar Hariyana Bijli Nigam ltd. 2015(4) SWCC (Civil) 129.

Thus, we find that due to poor up keeping of electric pole resulted death of the husband of the complainant and O.P refused the same on frivolous and baseless ground as well as denied the earning claimed by the wife of the complainant. We are aware that O.P ought to have provided services of particular standard by providing electricity and maintain safety and measure of the pole where the electrification is going on . But it appears that they failed to do so ,which is a breach of duty casted upon them and consequent damage have to be borne by them.

It is not the case of the O.p that there were heavy storm going on, for which, so many big trees were fallen on that pole and at that time complainant’s husband desperately was going on and thereby the said pole fallen down and succumb to death. If that be the position, then the O.P can prove that there is no negligent and it was a natural calamity. But in the instant case in hand admittedly the pole in dispute was accidentally fallen down and thereby the untimely death of 32 years old Tapan Roy snatched away the bread and butter of his family .

It is true that the post mortem report clearly shows that death was due to the effect of above mentioned injuries and anti mortem in nature and sustained injuries have already been proved by the written version in para 9 filed by the O.P claiming that due to broken down of electric pole death was caused.

Apart from that when the O.P has challenged the same ,they ought to have filed inquest report, wherefrom it can be derived how the injury was caused. In this connection, AIR 1994 (Himachal Pradesh) 139 can be relied upon wherein Hon’ble Division bench has held that negligence caused due to electrification by low hanging high tension wire ,wherein Electrical Inspector showed that accident happened due to gross negligence of the employees of Electricity Board. . In the reported case one teenager girl coming in contact with high voltage electric line and succumbed to death. That was negligent  of the Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and other respondents. The Hon’ble Apex Court in 2015(5) 129 and 2014-15 cases have observed regarding the quantum of the award ,wherein also one five years old boy electrified while coming in direct contact with the naked electric wire lying open on the roof of his house, wherein ,Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that incident occurred due to failure of the Statutory authority i.e. Uttar Hariyana Bijli Nigam Ltd. and other to  provide safety measures and ensure that life wires should not fall on roof of any building. Herein also, the WBSEDCL did not take care of safety measures to maintain the electric pole which has fallen down and Tapan Ray ,the husband of the complainant sustained injuries and succumbed to death.

The Ld. Advocate of the O.P ha relied 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003. But what prompted the O.P not to appoint Electrical Inspector for holding enquiry in view of section 2 of the said Act. So, when the is nothing to show that Electrical Inspector was appointed by the O.P soon after fallen down  of the electric pole , it can be safely hold that mishap was resulted due to carelessness and laches on the part of the O.P in view of reported decision AIR 2007 PAT 30( Bihar Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Ramsarup Yadav).

Thus after considering all pros and cons we find that due to negligence of the O.P and non-maintenance of the electric pole , untimely death of Tapan Roy, the husband of the complainant was caused  , which is nothing but unfair trade practice as well as deficiency in service by the Electricity Board.

Considering the spirit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2015 (4) Page 199 and considering the age of the victim Tapan Roy, i.e. 32 years ,as it is appearing from the post mortem report as well as Voter Identity Card we find that in the early morning of life of Tapan Roy, he was compelled to leave the family  members due to sheer negligence of the O.P and thereby the family members of Tapan Roy is starving.

We should consider the nature of damage of complainant’s family as well as suffering and the  expenditure that the complainant’s husband incurred and is likely to incur in future .

By considering the loss of complainant’s family and suffering pain ,this Bench must assess the effect upon particular circumstances. Here in the instant case untimely death of 32 years old young husband of the complainant cannot be compensated in any manner to her wife who has several dreams in life which has go bye suddenly without giving any alarm. So, it is manifested that no award of money can possibly compensate the widow/complainant  and renew her broken heart. It is well known to us that there are many losses which cannot easily be expressed in terms of the money. It is the person who can assess what he or she lost for ever. So, there is no market value for the personal loss which has been lost in the death of her husband in early day of their marriage life. So, there is no easy way of expressing its equivalent in terms of money.

Considering all this aspect , pros and cons we cannot ignore the claim of the complainant i.e. Rs, 10 lacs as compensation, particularly when entire life of the wife/complainant is still ahead with total uncertainty and if we ignore the amount of compensation, then the young widow has to compel to sacrifice herself for the sake of  her family by engaging her in immoral activities ,for which, in order to protect all these immoral act for living day to day life and for her bread and butter Rs.10 lacs compensation is just and proper ,otherwise, it would be a message to the complainant that the Bench of the Forum  ignored and failed to assess her prayer to live in the hard days with strong morality.

With that observation, it is

                                                                        Ordered

That the O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.10 lacs  towards compensation to the complainant for their negligence act which causes untimely death of the husband of the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.1 lac ( one lac) for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost  and all these awards have to be paid within 45 days from this date, failing which, interest will carry @10% p.a on and from 5.3.2014 (date of death of complainant’s husband) till its realization.

If the O.Ps fail to comply the order then the complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.

 

Member                                               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 O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.10 lacs  towards compensation to the complainant for their negligence act which causes untimely death of the husband of the complainant and also directed to pay Rs.1 lac ( one lac) for harassment and mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards litigation cost  and all these awards have to be paid within 45 days from this date, failing which, interest will carry @10% p.a on and from 5.3.2014 (date of death of complainant’s husband) till its realization.

If the O.Ps fail to comply the order then the complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the complainant free of cost and one copy be sent to the O.P through speed post.

 

Member                                               Member                                                                       President