BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 102 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 03.05.2021.
Date of Decision : 17.01.2023.
- Paramjeet Kaur widow of Shri Jagraj Singh,
- Anshpreet Singh, aged 13 years minor son of Shri Jagraj Singh, through Paramjeet Kaur mother and natural guardian.
- Angrej Kaur, widow of Shri Basant Singh (mother of deceased Jagraj Singh), all residents of village Makha, Tehsil Dabwali, District Sirsa.
……Complainants.
Versus.
- Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, through its Managing Director at Hisar.
- Executive Engineer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Dabwali, District Sirsa.
- Sub Divisional Officer, Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam, Kalanwali Sub Division, District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
BEFORE: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR………. PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR……………..MEMBER
SH. OM PARKASH TUTEJA… ……….MEMBER
Present: Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for complainants.
Sh. S.K. Garg, Advocate for opposite parties.
ORDER
The complainants being widow of deceased Jagraj Singh, minor son of deceased and mother of deceased have filed the present complaint for the compensation against the opposite parties on account of death of Shri Jagraj Singh on 17.08.2020 due to electrocution when he was cutting the grass with his fodder cutting machine as electricity spark had happened in the PVC line coming from the meter to the electric board installed at the house of the complainant, due to which an electric current had passed through the fodder machine and Jagraj Singh was electrocuted and he died in the way to the Civil Hospital, Sirsa. Thereafter, his post mortem examination was conducted on 18.08.2020. The age of deceased was 45 years at the time of his death. The complainants approached the ops for payment of compensation but ops did not pay any heed. The application dated 15.02.2021 was also moved in this regard but of no use and ultimately complainants got issued a legal notice through their counsel but to no effect. Hence, the present complaint for award of compensation.
2. On notice, ops appeared and filed written statement with preliminary objections qua maintainability, estoppal, concealment of true and material facts, jurisdiction and joint complaint is defect and false and frivolous complaint has been filed.
3. On merits, the contents of the complaint that complainant no.2 is minor and complainants are legal heir of the deceased Jagraj Singh are denied for want of knowledge. The contents of para no.3 of the complaint regarding occupation of the deceased are also denied for want of knowledge and the occurrence of death of Jagraj Singh is also denied and it is submitted that no such incidence has been reported to the ops. It is further submitted that on the alleged information provided by Iqbal Singh son of Basant Singh real brother of deceased, a rapat no.16 dated 18.08.2020 was lodged with Police Station Kalanwali and in which he has reported that the incidence had taken place while Jagraj Singh was using the grass cutter machine fitted with electric motor and that they do not want to take any action against anyone and nobody is at fault for this occurrence. It is admitted that deceased had died due to electrocution as per post mortem report. The ops have also pleaded that incidence had taken place due to electric shock from grass cutter machine which was attached with personal electric apparatus of the deceased and that is inside the house of the deceased and not with the electric apparatus installed by the Nigam and the death of the deceased was not due to negligence on the part of ops. It is further submitted that electricity line was personal line of deceased in his house and on his grass cutter machine as the electricity line was his personal line of Jagraj Singh and it is only the deceased who was responsible to maintain the position of the electricity line and he was duty bound to inform about any loosing of electricity wire or the deteriorated condition thereof to the ops immediately. Rest of the contents of the complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of the complaint made.
4. The complainants in order to prove their case have furnished affidavit of complainant Paramjeet Kaur widow of deceased Jagraj Singh as Ex.CW1/A in which she has reiterated the contents of their complaint. Ex.CW2/A is affidavit of Sh. Iqbal Singh brother of deceased in which he has also stated that on 17.08.2020 due to the sudden sparking in the supply line deceased was electrocuted through the fodder cutting machine and he had got registered a rapat no.16 dated 18.08.2020. Apart from affidavits, complainants have also placed on record copies of documents i.e. driving license of deceased Ex.C1, adhar card of deceased Ex.C2, certificate of registration of vehicle No. HR 57 3491 Ex.C3, jamabandi Ex.C4, electricity bill Ex.C5, death certificate of Jagraj Singh Ex.C6, rapat no.16 dated 18.08.2020 Ex.C7, post mortem report Ex.C8, certificate issued by Doctor Ex.C9, application for claim filed by Paramjeet Kaur widow of Jagraj Singh deceased before SDO, DHBVN, Kalanwali op no.3 Ex.C10, postal receipt Ex.C11, legal notice Ex.C12 and postal receipts of legal notice Ex.C13 to Ex.C15.
5. On the other hand, in order to rebut the evidence of complainants, ops have tendered affidavit of Sh. Ravi Kumar, SDO as Ex.RW1/A and copy of rapat no.16 dated 18.08.2020 Ex.R1.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case file.
7. Learned counsel for complainants contended that deceased Jagraj Singh had died due to electrocution and incidence in question had taken place due to negligence on the part of ops as all of sudden service wire got sparked which had caused current in the fodder cutting machine and electric motor from which the deceased was electrocuted and died. The complainant no.1 had filed an application before op no.3 for payment of compensation but no compensation has ever been given nor any assurance has been given by ops to the complainant and prayed that this complaint may be allowed. Learned counsel for complainants further contended that deceased was driver by profession and he was having his own Truck and was also running a diary farm and prayed that reasonable compensation may be awarded in favour of complainants who were totally dependent upon the income of deceased Jagraj Singh.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for ops contended that deceased/ complainants are not consumer of ops and present complaint is not maintainable as deceased had died within his house and on account of his own negligence as he had not properly installed his grass cutting machine as well as electric motor and there is no negligence on the part of ops. He has further contended that complainants have never reported the incidence to the department for the claim of compensation and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. We have duly considered the rival contentions of both the parties. From the perusal of pleadings and evidence led by both the parties, this Commission is of the opinion that it is an admitted case that deceased had died due to electrocution. It is also admitted that wire connecting the electricity connection to the house of complainant got immediate sparking and fodder cutting machine as well as electric motor got current and deceased Jagraj Singh was electrocuted and died on the way to the Civil Hospital, Sirsa. Since the service wire got sudden sparking meaning thereby that current was beyond control in the wire of supply line fitted by ops and caused current in the fodder cutting machine as well as electric motor fitted for fodder cutting machine meaning thereby that ops were negligent in flow of electric current which has caused further current in the equipments installed by deceased in his house.
10. Learned counsel for ops contended that present complaint is not maintainable as deceased/ complainants are not the consumer of ops. On the other hand, learned counsel for complainants has relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula passed in FA No. 1299 of 2017 titled as Kailash Vs. SDO/ AGM, DHBVNL and others decided on 8.5.2018 in which it was held that a person who is having the electricity connection in his name is a consumer and in the present case deceased was consumer of ops having electric connection in his name. Learned counsel for complainants further relied upon decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as Station Manager Patashpur Group Electric Supply and others vs. Dhananjay Bhunia, RP No.4800 of 2012 decided on 4.12.2017 in which the cause of death was electrocution in the post mortem report and there was plea of op that no officials of the department were informed about the accident of electrocution and it was held that the event of electrocution cannot be questioned as the same is confirmed by the post mortem report. It was further held that the fact of death by electrocution is undisputed established, therefore, deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in maintaining the lines is proved. Learned counsel for complainant has further relied judgment of the Hon’ble National Commission in case titled as C.G.M., P&O, NPDCL & Ors. Vs. Koppu Duddarajam & anr. RP No. 2142 of 2008 decided on 1.7.2008 in which it iwas held that death of farmer sitting in front of Panchayat office as a live high tension wire fell on him - Plea that deceased not a consumer repelled- Village Panchayats uses electricity for its officers and street lights and pays for out the taxes paid by the villagers to the Panchayats, hence villagers are consumers. In the present case, deceased was paying bills of electricity to the ops and therefore, he was definitely a consumer of ops. It is proved on record that deceased Jagraj Singh electrocuted and died due to the negligence of the ops and in view of the judgments passed by Hon’ble National Commission as well as Hon’ble State Commission, Haryana, Panchkula, present complaint is maintainable and therefore, complainants being legal heirs of deceased and his dependents are entitled for compensation from ops on account of death of Jagraj Singh deceased being consumer of ops.
11. Now we come to the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the complainants for the death of Jagraj Singh deceased. Though there is no concrete evidence on record about the deceased Jagraj Singh, but the fact cannot be ignored that deceased Jagraj Singh was 45 years old at the time of his death and was able bodied person and was driving his own truck as is evident from his driving licence Ex.C1 as well as registration certificate of his truck Ex.C3. Further, he was having his spouse namely Paramjeet Kaur complainant no.1, his minor children complainant no.2 and widow mother Smt. Angrej Kaur complainant no.3 and all the three complainants were totally dependent upon the earning and income of the deceased Jagraj Singh. So, we are of the considered opinion that opposite parties are liable to pay lump sum amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainants which is reasonable and justified amount as compensation to be paid to the complainants as per law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court that Courts have to compensate the actual loss and not to enrich the claimants. In this regard the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as State of Gujarath vs. Shantilal Mangaldas AIR 1969 SC 634 has held that “the compensation to be awarded is to be fair and reasonable.” It is also settled proposition of law that it is for the Consumer Commission to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge.
12. In view of our above discussion, we allow the present complaint against the opposite parties and direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation to all the three complainants within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. We also direct the opposite parties to further pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. All the three complainants are entitled to the above said amount of Rs.5,00,000/- in equal shares. The share of minor complainant no.2 Mr. Anshpreet Singh shall remain deposited in fixed deposit in some Nationalized Bank till the minor attains the age of majority. However, he will be entitled to receive the interest of his amount through his mother and natural guardian for expenses of his upbringing and education etc. It is made clear that in case ops fail to comply with this order within above said stipulated period of 45 days, then complainants shall be entitled to recover the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from ops alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of this order till actual realization. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member Member President,
Dated: 17.01.2023. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
Typed by:
Jagdish Kumar (Stenographer)
