Date of filing ::26.05.2016

Date of hearing : 11.05.2017

        The instant appeal Under Section 15 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act‘) is at the behest of  the Opposite Parties to impeach the judgement and Final Order dated 29.04.2016 passed by the District  Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24-Parganas at Baruipur  ( for  short, Ld. District Forum ) in Consumer Complaint No.561/2014 whereby the consumer complaint initiated by the Respondent Smt. Namita Roy Under Section 12 of the Act was allowed on contest  with the  directions upon the Appellants/Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for loss of life of husband of the  respondent, Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards litigation cost.

        The Respondent herein being  complainant lodged the complaint alleging that on 05.03.2014 at about 9.30 a.m. while her husband Tapan Roy ( victim ) was proceeding towards Diamond Harbour Road from Naltala village to avail a bus, suddenly one pillar broke down and stuck on the person of victim resulting to his death. The complainant submits that at the relevant time, the victim was  32 years old and being a mason he had an income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. The complainant states that due to negligence or deficiency in services on the part of the OPs, her husband’s premature death has occurred. Therefore, the respondent approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for certain  reliefs, viz – (a) a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- for negligent act of the OPs ; (b) a compensation ofRs.5,00,000/- for harassment and mental agony and (c) litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- etc.

        The appellants being OPs by filling a written version disputed the claim. The OPs have stated that the death of the complainant’s husband was caused due to accidental fallen down of an electrical pole which was standing on a public road and the complainant cannot be termed as ‘Consumer’. The OPs have also stated that owing to bad workmanship few pillars were in a bad condition and the same was brought to the notice of OP No.2 by the local persons in number of occasions but they did not take any step.

        After assessing the materials on record including the evidence led by the parties the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint to the extent as indicated above, which prompted OP Nos. 1 & 2  to prefer this appeal.

        Mr. Srijan Nayak, Ld. Counsel for the appellants assailing the judgment made by the Ld. District Forum has submitted that the victim was not a ‘Consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act and on that ground alone the complaint should have been dismissed. He has further submitted that the construction of electric poles are not done by the Licensing Authority i.e. the WBSEDCL directly by themselves and they are  doing the same through the contractor and this regard one M/s. Manashi Construction, an enlisted contractor agency of WBSEDCL was engaged for setting up electric pole in the locality  and for the fault on the part of contractor, the entire liability cannot be attributed to the WBSEDCL. Mr. Nayak has also submitted that the death of a person is always unfortunate and it cannot be compensated by money and when the  amount of compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- has been awarded, certainly it is on the higher side and in this regard he has drawn of my attention to a  report submitted by the Station Manager, Sarisha CCC whereby the WBSEDCL agreed to make payment of Rs.2,50,000/- to the wife of the victim i.e. the respondent as solarium.

        Per contra, Mr. Anup Bhattacharya, Ld. Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the tragic incident of death of a young person had taken place due to negligence or deficiency on the part of the WBSEDCL and such responsibility cannot be absolved by blaming upon the contractor appointed by the respondent. Disputing the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant he has contended that the victim was a ‘Consumer’ and in support of his contention, he has placed reliance to a decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Commission reported in 2008 (4) CPJ 139 ( CGMP and O NPDCL –vs. – Koppu Duddarajam ). The Ld. Counsel for the respondent has finally submitted that the compensation awarded by the Ld. District Forum is in consonance with the loss and injury suffered by  the respondent and to buttress his submission, he has placed two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in – (1) (2015) 4 SCC (CIV) 546 ( V. Krishnakumar –vs. – State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. ) and (2) the judgement in Civil Appeal No. 11466 of 2014 ( Raman – vs. – Uttar Hariyana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. ).

        I have given due consideration to the submission advanced by the Ld.Advocates appearing for the parties and also scrutinised the materials on record.

        The respondent herein lodged the complaint on account of sudden demise of her husband. Now, from the Certificate of death it emerges that the husband of the respondent namely Tapan Roy, who was then 32 years of old passed away on 05.03.2014. The post-mortem report indicates that  the death of  the victim took place due to the effects of some injuries, which are ante-mortem and accidental in nature. The appellant did not deny the cause of death.

        In fact, the  report submitted by the Station  Manager, Sarisha Customer Care Centre of WBSEDCL goes to show that on 05.03.2014 at about 9.30 a.m. at village Naltala, P. S. – Ramnagar, South  24 – Parganas, M/s. Manishi Construction, an enlisted contractor agency of WBSEDCL, was working for replacement of one broken PCC Pole of LT  OH line at Naltala under the jurisdiction of Sarisha CCC. While the work was going on,  the said damaged broken pole suddenly fell down. The victim was suddenly passing from under the Pole and  the Pole fell upon him for which the victim succumbed to his injuries. Therefore, it remains undisputed that on account of falling down of one electric pole of WBSEDCL this untoward incident has happened resulting to death of husband of the respondent.

        The Ld. District Forum has observed – “ Due to carelessness and latches of the OPs 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’. ....”. I do not find any reason to differ with the view of the Ld. District Forum because in  the case of CGMP and O NPDCL ( Supra ) Hon’ble National Commission while discussing on the point has observed  that the villages pays taxes to the village Panchayets and power consumption charges to the electricity company and hence they are consumers. The avowed object behind the legislation of the Act is a purposive one and it has to be considered in broad objective to protect a ‘Consumer’. Therefore, there is no reason to differ with the view of the Ld. District Forum that  the husband of the respondent was a ‘Consumer’ within  the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act.

        Now, we will consider whether the amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- awarded by the Ld. District Forum is justified or not in the context of loss suffered by the respondent. The overwhelming evidence on record, particularly the voters identity card goes to show that  at the relevant time victim was 32/33 years of age.  The respondent has stated that being a mason her husband had an income of Rs. 6,000/- p.m. The income of a mason cannot be proved by any documentary evidence and  the statement made by the wife of the victim  cannot be simply discarded. Moreover, the day to day experience  leads to believe that the statement made by the respondent as to the income of her husband is not exaggerated. But the Ld. District Forum did not consider  that had   the victim been  remain alive, at least 1/3rd income would have been his personal expenditure. The submission of the Ld. Counsel for the appellant regarding payment of solarium of Rs. 2,50,000/- appears to be on lower side.  The decision of  the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Krishnakumar  ( Supra ) appears to be distinguishable with our case because  the referred case was related to medical negligence of a child and for survival of a child, particularly taken into consideration the past medical expenses, future medical expenses and an apportioning for inflation, the Hon’ble Apex Court has awarded an amount of Rs.1,38,00,000/- in the name of  the child Sharanya in the form of a Fixed Deposit. The other decision in the case of Raman (Supra) also relates to a child of 4 years who was electrocuted on 03.11.2011 for which the said boy sustain severe injuries  resulting to 100% permanent  disability and in that case a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- was awarded. Therefore, the principle of  quantum of compensation applied in those cases cannot be applied in  the facts and circumstances of the present case.

        I am in agreement with the Ld. District Forum that any amount of compensation cannot give a relief to the respondent to renew her broken heart. But at the same time an amount of compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- cannot be said to be just because it is evident that the victim passed away leaving behind him only his wife and it does not appear that  the respondent is not doing any job or that  she will not be able to do any job on account of any incapacity. Considering  the latches on negligence on the part of the WBSEDCL vis-a-vis  the loss suffered by the respondent, it appears to me that a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- in the facts and circumstances will sub-serve   the object of justice.

        In view of the above, the impugned order is modified to the extent that in place of Rs. 10,00,000/-  the appellant no.1 i.e. WBSEDCL shall pay Rs.5,00,000/- to the  respondent /complainant as compensation and also  litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- as imposed by the Ld. District Forum. The above amount must be paid within  30 days from date otherwise the amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from date till its full realisation.

        With the above observations and directions, the appeal stands disposed of. 

         The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South 24-Paranas at Baruipur for information.