Haryana

Bhiwani

99/2014

Phoola Devi wife of amar Singhh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

sajjan sharma

27 Jul 2023

ORDER

Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.

                                                                        Complaint No. : 99 of 2014

                                                              Instituted on     : 04.04.2014

                                                              Decided on       :  27.07.2023

 

1. Smt. Phoola Devi widow of Amar Singh son of Chandgi Ram (since deceased) through her legal heirs  i- Dalbir s/o Amar Singh(Complainant No.2), ii- Sumitra, iii-Santosh D/o Amar Singh (performa respondents No.4 & 5), 2. Dalbir s/o Amar Singh s/o of Sh. Chandgi, all R/o Village Jui Khurd Tehsil and Distt Bhiwani

                                                                                  ………..Complainant.

                                         Vs.

1. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.  through M. D Vidyut Nagar Hisar, Tehsil and Distt Hisar.
2. Executive Engineer, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.  Tehsil and Distt. Bhiwani.
3. SDO Operation Sub Division, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.  Jui Kalan, Tehsil and Distt Bhiwani.

……..Contested respondents

4.  Sumitra, 5- Santosh D/o Amar Singh D/o Amar Singh s/o Chandgi  resident of Village Jui Khurd, Tehsil and Distt. Bhiwami.

 

1.  

COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986.

BEFORE:   SMT. SAROJ BALA BOHRA, PRESIDING MEMBER.

                     SH. D.M.Yadav,  MEMBER.

 

Present:        Sh. Roshan, Adv. for the complainant.

                     Sh. NM Sharma, Adv. for opposite parties no. 1 to 3.

ORDER:

 

SAROJ BALA, PRESIDING MEMBER:

1.                  Earlier a complaint was filed by the complainant before this Commission vide complaint no.209/2005, which was disposed of on 02.07.2009 with direction to the opposite parties to settle  the claim of the complainant within two months from the date of receipt of documents. Thereafter the complaint was filed before this Commission on 04.04.2014, which was dismissed by this Commission vide its order dated 21.06.2017 on the ground that the complainant is not consumer. The complainant filed an appeal of the alleged order before the Hon’ble State commission vide First Appeal no.1032 of 2017. The Hon’ble state Commission vide its order dated 04.10.2018  has set aside the order dated 21.06.2017 of this Commission and has held that complainants are covered under the definition of ‘complainant’ and ‘consumer’ as provided under section 2(1( c) and 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection  Act, 1986 and it is a  clear case of deficiency in service. The Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 04.10.2018 has remanded back the case for fresh decision of the case on merits. 

2.                  Brief facts of the case are that on 05^th June 2004, Amar Singh husband of complainant no.1 had gone outside for defecation. There was an electricity pole near the house of Dharmender, resident of same village, where a broken electricity wire was lying near the alleged pole. The Amar Singh got in contact with the alleged wire  and due to electricity current Amar Singh was electrocuted and had died.  Information was given to the SDO, Operation Sub Division as well as to the Police Post, Jui on the same day i.e. 05.04.2004 . An entry No.20 dated 05.06.2004 was made in the Daily Diary Register in this regard and post mortem examination of Amar Singh was conducted at Civil hospital, Bhiwani. The doctor given his opinion that the reason of death was electrocution. It is further submitted that Amar Singh used to earn an amount of Rs.5000/- per month as he was doing diary farming business. The Amar Singh had died due to negligence and carelessness on the part of officials and officers of the opposite parties by not maintaining the broken electricity wire lying on the earth. The complainants visited to the respondents and made representation with a demand to pay compensation on account of death of Amar Singh, and also sent a registered notice dated 05.08.2004 to the opposite parties, but till date no compensation has been given to the complainants. Hence there is a great deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As such it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from dated 05.06.2004 to till its realization as well as litigation expenses to the complainant.

3.                  Notice of the present complaint was issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties in their written reply has taken the plea that complainants have no locus standi to file the present complaint, the District Commission has no jurisdiction  to decide the complainant and the dispute is liable to be decided by the Civil Court. It is further submitted that the complainant are not entitled to file the present complaint again on the same facts. It is submitted that this Commission vide its order dated 02.07.2009 had directed the complainant to hand over the required documents to the opposite parties within 15 days and thereafter, the opposite parties were to settle the claim within  a period of two months. But the claim could not be settled as the complainants did not submit the needed documents to the opposite parties.  The complainant did not give any information regarding the accident to the opposite parties. Amar Singh did not die due to electric current and there is no deficiency in service on the part of officials or officers of the opposite parties.  The complainants are not entitled for any relief and dismissal of complaint has been sought.   

4.                  Ld. counsel for the complainant in his evidence has tendered documents Annexure A-1 to Annexure A-13 and has closed his evidence on dated 20.08.2015. However, opposite parties failed to adduce their evidence despite availing sufficient opportunities and on 08.06.2017 have stated that no evidence is to be adduced by the opposite parties.

5.                  After going through the file and hearing the parties it is observed that as per copy of DDR ‘Annexure A-7’, on 05.06.2004 deceased Amar Singh had gone outside for defecation and he was found dead near the house of Dharmender where a broken electric wire was lying on the earth and the death of Amar Singh was due to coming in contact with the alleged broken electric wire. As per copy of PMR, the cause of death of Amar Singh is electrocution due to felling of electricity wire.  Photographs ‘Annexure A12 & Annexure A-13’ also shows that deceased Amar Singh is lying dead on the earth and an electric wire is tucked under his arm.

6.                  Hence from the documents placed on record by the complainant  it is proved that Sh.Amar Singh had died due to electrocution. On the other hand, opposite parties have not placed on record even a single document to prove that whether they checked the spot of accident or whether the wires were intact. No such report has been placed on file by the opposite parties. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties for not maintain the electricity wires, due to which Amar Singh had died. In this regard we have placed reliance upon the law cited by ld. counsel for the complainant in Civil Appeal no.3883 of 2007 of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Safety Glass Works Ltd.,  II(2013)CPJ 321(NC) titled Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Parmila Devi & Ors. Hon’be National Commission has held that: “Accidental  Death-Improper insulation of live wire-Appellant-Nigam are responsible since they are required to ensure that such installations are properly and securely maintained so that there are no safety hazards to consumers/public”, A.S.No.627 f 1989  D/d 08.04.2003 titled as Tamilnadu Electricity board, Madras vs. Parvathi Ammal. We have also placed reliance upon III(2010) CPJ 198(NC) titled DHBVNL Vs.Vidhya Devi  whereby Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi has observed that “Petitioner transmits energy, has duty to ensure safety and security of persons, animals and other objects-Loose, exposed wire causes damages-Petitioner held liable to compensate losses”. On the quantum, the reliance has been placed on the Paramjit Kaur and others Vs. State of Punjab and others 2008(4)RCR 772(DB) (P & H) wherein Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court has observed that in case of death of a person due to electrocution and negligence of electricity board damages are to be assessed on the basis of principles of Motor Vehicle Act.

7.                  In view of the aforesaid law which are fully applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case it is observed that opposite parties are liable to pay the compensation on the basis of principles of Motor Vehicle Act, which is assessed as under:-

                     As per copy of DDR, Annexure A-7,   at the time of death, Sh. Amar Singh was 55 years old and as per Motor Vehicle Act, a multiplier of 11 will be applied for assessment of compensation.  As per the complainant, the deceased was earning an amount of Rs.5000/- per month after selling milk and after doing agriculture work in the year 2004. Hence the income of deceased is assessed as Rs.5000/- per month. After deducting 1/3^rd on account of his own expenses, the dependency comes as Rs.3333/- per month and annual income comes to Rs.40000/- per annum. As per Motor Vehicle Act, multiplier of 11 is applicable if the age of deceased is 51-55 years. Therefore, by multiplying the dependency with 11, the amount of compensation comes to Rs.440000/-(Rs.40000/- x 11). In the present case Smt. Phoola Devi is widow of deceased Amar Singh, Sumitra and Santosh are the daughters of deceased Amar Singh and Dalbir is son of deceased Amar Singh. In this way there are 4 legal heirs of deceased Amar Singh. As per our opinion, total compensation amount of Rs.440000/- would be distributed to all the legal heirs of deceased in equal share and complainant Phoola Devi is also entitled for loss of estate & loss of consortium Rs.20000/-.

8.                  In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite partyNo.1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.4,40000/-(Rupee four lac forty thousand only) alongwith interest@ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 04.04.2014 till its actual realization and shall also pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupe es ten thousand only) as compensation on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5500/-(Rupees five thousand five hundred only) as litigation expenses to the legal heirs of deceased Amar Singh namely Phoola Devi, Sumitra, Santosh and Dalbir in equal share. Opposite parties no.1 to 3 are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand only) to the complainant Phoola Devi on account of loss of estate & loss of consortium. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision.

9.                Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced in open Commission.

Dated: - 27.07.2023

 

 

 (D.M.Yadav)                          (Saroj Bala Bohra)                

   Member.                            Presiding Member,

         District Consumer Disputes            District Consumer Disputes

          Redressal Commission, Bhiwani     Redressal Commission, Bhiwani.