PER VINEETA RAI, MEMBER

1.      This first appeal has been filed by Dakshini Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited & Anr., Appellants herein and Opposite Parties before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) being aggrieved by the order of that Commission which had allowed the complaint filed on grounds of negligence and deficiency in service by Parmila Devi, Respondent No.1 herein and Complainant before the State Commission.

2.      In her complaint before the State Commission, Respondent No.1 had stated that her late husband Ranbir Singh (hereinafter referred to as the Deceased), who was Commando Head Constable with Haryana Police, had accidentally come into contact with a stay (live) wire attached to an electric pole installed near the tube-well of his field and since the said wire was not fitted with an insulator, he got electrocuted and died on the spot.  A report to this effect was lodged with the Police and post mortem conducted confirmed that death was due to electrocution.  Respondent No.1 filed a representation to this effect before the Appellants stating that since she lost her husband due to negligence on the part of the Appellants in not insulating the wire, a compensation of Rs.20 Lakhs be paid to the Respondents.  Since no response was received by Respondent No.1 to her representation in this respect, she filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants and requested that Appellants be directed to pay the Respondents compensation of Rs.20 Lakhs.

3.      Appellants on being served filed a written reply contesting the complaint.  It was stated that the allegations made by the Respondents were wrong since there was no electric supply at 6.00 p.m. on 27.03.2000 when the Deceased reportedly came into contact with the stay/live wire and got electrocuted.  It was also stated that the wire was properly insulated.  In fact, the Respondents did not immediately inform the Appellants about the accident and on receipt of information on 28.03.2000 officers from Appellant-Department immediately rushed to the site for inspection/inquiry and a Chief Electrical Inspector also investigated the matter and submitted a report on 14.03.2001, according to which it appears that the Deceased got an electric shock when he tried to get electricity supply to his tube-well by fiddling with the transformer.  It was also submitted that the transformer was damaged on 25.03.2000 and replaced on 29.03.2000 and during this period the GO switch was cut off from the main line but Deceased tried to operate and mishandle the GO switch resulting in the main contact wire getting broken and 11 KVA current flowing into the handle of the GO switch and causing the fatal accident.  Appellants also stated that the Respondents had no locus standi to file the complaint since the tube-well was not in the name of the Deceased but was in the name of one Maha Singh s/o Kartar Singh.

4.      The State Commission after hearing the parties and on the basis of evidence produced before it allowed the complaint by observing as under:-

“13.   It hardly matters that the tubewell was in the name of Maha Singh S/o Kartar Singh because Maha Singh is the real brother of Ranbir Singh and they were seven brothers.  They were joint and had joint agricultural land, so, Ranbir Singh as a beneficiary of the tubewell was also a consumer.

14.    It is further stated in the affidavit of Sh.A.S. Jaiswal, SDO ‘OP’ Pataudi that as per statement of villagers, Ranbir Singh died when he was forcibly operating the handle of GO Switch of 63 KVA T/F SOP but he further stated that no one was ready to state the facts in writing.  The version as stated in the affidavit of A.S. Jaiswal is not correct.  The transformer may not be in working condition but it does not mean that no current was flowing in the transformer.  No documentary evidence has been led that insulation of the stay wires was done.  The lineman Sh. Ram Kishore, Ram Dhan, A.L.M. and Mohinder A.L.M. also filed a joint affidavit stating that they had checked the L.T. Line connected to the transformer and found O.K.  They further stated that they had removed the outgoing jumper of the transformer, so, that no one can try to operate the GO switch and had intimated the feeder incharge Mahavir Singh, AFM.  If jumper had been removed then there was no question of the current flowing even if Ranbir Singh had tried to mishandle the GO Switch in order to operate the same.  This only shows that it is a made up story that jumper had been removed.  In the written reply dated 3.10.2002 it is not mentioned that the jumper had been removed. It is further stated in the written reply that deceased was in drunken state and there was no supply to the LT system.  The postmortem of the dead body of Ranbir Singh was conducted on 28.3.2000 but the doctors did not find that he was drunk.  Thus, story of O.Ps is not believable.  In fact the current was flowing in the said stay wire and by accident, Ranbir Singh came into contact with stay wire fixed with the pole from where electricity was being supplied to tubewell and was electrocuted.  O.Ps did not take proper precaution to insulate the said stay wire and further it is all a made up story that he had tried to mishandle the GO switch forcibly and in that process 11 KVA current lowed in the handle of GO switch which caused fatal accident.”

The State Commission after taking into account the salary of the Deceased, his age and future prospects was of the view that the loss to the family and estate would be Rs.48,000/- per annum and after applying the multiplier of 16, the total amount was calculated at Rs.7,68,000/-.  In addition to this amount, the State Commission concluded that Respondents are entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- for loss of companionship and fatherly love.  The State Commission, therefore, directed the Appellants to pay the Respondents a sum of Rs.8,18,000/-, which included cost of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum six months after the date of death of the Deceased on 27.03.2000 i.e. from 27.09.2000 till payment.

5.      Being aggrieved by the order of State Commission, Appellants/Opposite Parties have filed this First Appeal.

6.      Learned Counsels for both parties made oral submissions.

7.      Counsel for the Appellants contended that the complaint was not maintainable because the Deceased was not a ‘consumer’ of the Appellants since he had not hired or availed of Appellants’ service by taking electricity connection from them.  Apart from this, the State Commission erred in not accepting Appellants’ contention that the LT line was damaged on 25.03.2000 and replaced only on 29.03.2000 and during this period the outgoing jumper of the transformer was removed so that no one could operate the GO switch but during inspection it was found that the GO switch was broken and, therefore, it was clear that the Deceased had forcibly tried to operate the GO switch of the transformer and during this process current had flown in the handle of the switch and caused the fatal accident.  In fact insulator was provided on the stay wire and this insulator was broken intentionally by the Respondents to establish their case that the deceased had accidentally touched the live wire and died.  Apart from this, the State Commission failed to appreciate the report/findings of the Chief Electrical Inspector dated 14.03.2001, wherein it was revealed as per the statement of employees of the Appellants as also villagers that there was no electricity on 25.03.2000 and there were also no eye witnesses regarding this accident.

8.      Counsel for the Respondents on the other hand stated that the Deceased had died following electrocution and this fact had been confirmed by the post mortem report.  Further, proceedings under Section 174 Cr.PC, which were conducted following the death of the Deceased, confirmed that on 27.03.2000 the Deceased who had come to his village on leave had gone at about 6.00 p.m. to his field to inspect the crop and that he accidentally came into contact with a stay wire, which was not insulated and he got electrocuted.  Photographs were also filed in evidence clearly indicating the presence of an electric pole near the tubewell belonging to the family of the deceased.  This fact was also recorded in the report of the Chief Electrical Inspector in his report dated 14.03.2001.  However, other facts reported in the said report of Chief Electrical Inspector were wrong, including his statement that the Deceased died on 07.03.2000.  Report of the Chief Electrical Inspector as also the statements of the witnesses, who are reported to have denied that any accident took place, have not been placed on file.  Further, even though the tubewell was not in the name of the Deceased and was in the name of his brother Maha Singh, there was documentary evidence filed before the State Commission i.e. the agricultural record that the Deceased and Maha Singh alongwith their other brothers were all joint owners of the agricultural land and, therefore, it is clear that the Deceased as a beneficiary of the service provided by the Appellants was a ‘consumer’ of the Appellant-Nigam.  No documentary evidence had been filed to support Appellants’ contention that proper insulation of the stay wire had been done. The State Commission giving detailed reasons has, therefore, rightly concluded that there was negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Appellants.    

9.      We have heard learned Counsels for both parties and have also considered the evidence on record.  The death of Respondent No.1’s husband through electrocution when he came into contact with stay wire in the agricultural fields on 27.03.2000 is not in dispute.  Appellants’ contention is that this electrocution was caused because Deceased tried to tamper with the transformer and wiring etc. while trying to restore electricity to the tubewell connection and, therefore, his death occurred because of his own fault and not due to any negligence or deficiency on the part of the Appellants who had properly insulated the wire and further on that day electricity was not available.  We are unable to accept these contentions because Appellants have not filed any evidence to support their contentions.  Even the report of the Chief Electrical Inspector who had inquired into the incident was not filed in evidence before the State Commission nor have the affidavits of any witnesses to prove Appellants’ case been produced before the State Commission.  On the other hand, proceedings under Section 174 Cr.PC which had been conducted following Deceased’s death reached a finding on the basis of the statements of witnesses that the Deceased got electrocuted when the accidentally came into contact with the stay wire which was not insulated.  Photographs filed in evidence (Exhibit P-3 and P-4) also clearly indicate that there is an electric pole near the tubewell belonging to the family of the deceased to which the stay wires were fixed.  The State Commission, which is a first court of fact, in this case had also concluded that the version of the Appellants that they had removed the outgoing jumper of the transformer so that no one could operate the GO switch is not correct because if the jumper had been removed, then there was no question of flowing of current even if the Deceased had tried to mishandle the GO switch in order to operate the same.  The relevant observations of the State Commission in this respect have already been reproduced in this Order.  Keeping in view these facts, we are in agreement with the finding of the State Commission that the death of Respondent No.1’s husband occurred because of his accidentally touching a stay wire which was not properly insulated, for which the Appellant-Nigam are clearly 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.

10.    We, therefore, uphold the order of the State Commission in toto.  The present First Appeal having no merit is dismissed.  No costs.