Sri Kamal De, President
This is a case for compensation and other relief over the accidental injury caused to 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 brother-in-law, Dinesh Bhowmik in the dead of night on 09-07-2015 causing grave injury to him. Seeing the condition of said Dinesh Bhowmik, her husband rushed to rescue him and in the process, he too sufferred electric shock and burn injury. It is stated that the accident has rendered Complainant’s husband incapable to do any work. It is also stated that the entire matter was intimated to the OP No. 1, but to no avail. 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 its present form and prayer. 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 injured husband was a consumer of the OPs. The Complainant, however, has filed a money receipt in the name of one Smt. Dipannita Bhowmick w/o Dinesh, a relation of the Complainant, towards online cash collection of WBSEDCL. However, fact remains that the Complainant as well as his husband, in their capacity as beneficiaries of the services provided by the OPs, do qualify as bona fide consumers. We are fortified in this regard by the 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). 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 inter-linked points are taken up together for the sake of brevity of discussion.
The Complainant has placed on record a bunch of medical papers, including money receipts, bills and vouchers towards treatment of her husband at Seva Nursing Home, Purba Medinipur. From the said documents it appears that Complainant’s husband suffered electric burn injury and underwent treatment for the same. That apart, the OPs have not disputed the factum of the injury suffered by Complainant’s husband over electric shock from a snapped LT conductor.
We, however, find that, in a bid to escape liability, OPs blamed the villagers as well as the injured person for the unfortunate injury sustained by Complainant’s husband. The reality, however, remains that maintenance of OH electric line squarely falls on the OPs and none else. It is the duty of the OPs to remain wide awake 24 x 7 so as to ensure that no one can put the life of common people at risk through unlawful activities. If the rated wire had indeed been 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 for the said accident stops nowhere but at the doorstep of the OPs. It is also alleged that the injured person was aware of the fact that a live wire got snapped and fallen on the ground. However, for some obscure reasons, 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 of a person of reasonable prudence put his own life at stake as the OPs sought to make us 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 must discharge their liability to compensate the Complainant.
Now, let us decide what should be the appropriate compensation figure. Complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- as compensation. However, she has refrained from elaborating 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 injured person. The Complainant has submitted photocopy of a certificate from the Pradhan, Padumpur No. 1 Gram Panchayat dated 02-05-2016 to show the present infirm condition of her husband.
It transpires from the documents on record that the Complainant had to incur an expenditure of Rs. 90,000/- (approx..) towards treatment of her husband. It is a clear pointer of the gravity of injury suffered by the victim. More so, we find that the said injury rendered Complainant’s husband jobless leading to loss of income. In absence of income proof certificate from the side of the Complainant, we consider the income of Complainant’s husband on a conservative basis at Rs.3,000/- p.m. Besides, we deem it just and proper to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- for the pain and agony suffered by Complainant’s husband. Considering all this aspect, we feel, justice would be done if we award a lump sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation in favour of the Complainant. Apart from the above, the Complainant will also be entitled to a litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
Both these points are, thus, decided in favour of the Complainant.
Consequently, the instant case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
that C. C. No. 13/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs. OPs are directed to pay, within 40 days hence, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the Complainant as compensation and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- 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. 1,50,000/- from this day till compliance of this order in toto.
