Sri Kamal De, President
This is a case for compensation and other relief over the unfortunate death of Complainant’s husband due to electrocution.
In short, case of the Complainant, is that a live wire of high voltage electricity line fell upon her husband in the dead of night on 09-07-2015 causing grave injury to him. Subsequently, although he was rushed to the Purba Medinipur District Hospital, he succumbed to his injury after battling for his life for 17 days. It is stated that necessary FIR has been lodged in this regard with the local police station. Accusing the OPs of gross negligence, Complainant has filed this case for compensation and other relief.
Case of the OPs, on the other hand, is that the Complainant is not a consumer and as such, the present case is not maintainable in this Forum. Further, it is stated that on 10-07-2015, due to heavy storm and rain, one LT conductor got snapped and fell on the bamboo bridge situated behind the house of the Complainant. It is alleged that local villagers secretly replaced the rated fuse wire with thick aluminum wire to prevent interruption of power behind the back of the OPs. As a result, when the LT conductor got snapped and fell on the ground, it did not become dead. OPs have squarely blamed the husband of the Complainant for venturing out of his house on such a stormy night. It is claimed by the OPs that they had no prior knowledge about snapping of conductor and denied any negligence on their part.
Points for consideration
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer, or not?
- Whether there is any negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to any benefit, or not?
Decision with reasons
Point No. 1:
It is a fact that the Complainant has not placed on record any piece of paper to show that her deceased husband was a consumer of the OPs. We, however, find that the complainant has filed a money receipt on online collection centre of Electric Supply showing that the father of the deceased was a consumer of WBSEDCL. We, however, do not know whether the deceased was residing in the same self bastu or not. However, fact remains that the Complainant as well as his husband, since deceased, in their capacity as beneficiaries of the services provided by the OPs, do qualify as bona fide consumers [decision of Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of C.G.M., P&O, NPDCL & Ors. Vs. Koppu Duddarajam & Anr. [reported in IV (2008) CPJ 139 (NC) relied upon]. Further, we see no wrong on the part of the Complainant to file the instant case in her capacity as a dependent wife of her deceased husband. Objection of the OPs in this regard is not tenable as such.
This point is, thus, decided in favour of the Complainant.
Point Nos. 2&3:
Both these points are taken up together for the sake of convenience of discussion.
The PM report sufficiently proves that Complainant’s husband died of electrocution. In fact, the OPs have also not disputed such fact. However, they have blamed the villagers as well as the deceased person for the unfortunate accident. In the process, they appears to have forgotten the fact that maintenance of OH electric line squarely falls on them and no one else. They need to remain wide awake so as to ensure that no one dares to put the life of local people at risk through unlawful activities. If the rated wire was indeed replaced with aluminum wire, it happened because of sheer laxity on the part of the OPs to keep a strict vigil on OH line. Let us not forget that tampering of OH line in such a manner cannot be the handiwork of any ordinary person. It is not the case of the OPs that rated fuse wire at the nearest transformer was replaced with thick aluminum wires by local villagers just before the alleged storm. That being the undisputed position, we are of view that the buck stops nowhere but at their doorstep. It is also alleged that the deceased person was aware of the fact that a live wire got snapped and had fallen on the ground. However, for some obscure reasons, the OPs have refrained from divulging the source of such information. They have not placed on record any spot inspection report/statement of co-villagers to substantiate such fact. It is highly unlikely that a person of reasonable prudence would put his own life at stake by venturing to a dangerous place as the OPs want us to believe. We cannot rely on the unsubstantiated facts being dished out by the OPs. In our considered opinion, Complainant’s husband fell victim of gross negligence on the part of the OPs and as such, the latter cannot avoid their liability to compensate the Complainant.
Now, let us decide what should be the appropriate compensation figure. Life of a human being is precious and no amount is sufficient to compensate such loss. Complainant has claimed a sum of RS. 15,00,000/- as compensation. However, she has not elaborated in detail the basis of such calculation. Although it is stated that the Complainant’s husband used to work as a temporary worker at KTPS, no income proof certificate is furnished on record either thereby, leaving us with no scope to ascertain the actual income of the deceased person at the time of his untimely death. However, on a conservative basis we assume his income at RS. 3,000/- per month. The age of deceased husband of the Complainant is stated to be about 40 years which is supported by the PM Report. From the photocopy of the gate pass, issued by M/s Techno Engineering in favour of the Complainant on 02-07-2015, it appears that the deceased husband of the Complainant was 33 years old. We are of the view that interest of justice would be met if one-fourth is deducted as the personal and living expenses of the deceased. After such deduction, the contribution to the family (dependents) is determined as RS.27,000/- per annum. The multiplier will be 16 having regard to the age of the deceased at the time of death (approx. 40 years). Therefore the total loss of dependency would be RS.27,000/- x 16 = RS. 4,32,000/-. In addition, the Complainant will be entitled to a sum of RS.2,500/- under the head of loss of estate and RS.2,000/- towards funeral expenses. The widow will be entitled to RS.5,000/- as loss of consortium. Thus, the total compensation will be RS.4,41,500/-. Apart from the above, the Complainant will also be entitled to a litigation cost of RS.10,000/-.
Both these points are, thus, decided in favour of the Complainant.
Consequently, the instant case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
that C. C. No. 14/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs. OPs are directed to pay, within 40 days hence, a sum of RS. 4,41,500/- to the Complainant as compensation and another sum of RS. 10,000/- as litigation cost, i.d., Complainant would be at liberty to execute this order in accordance with the law in which case, OPs would be liable to pay interest @ 8% p.a. over RS. 4,41,500/- from this day till compliance of this order in toto.
