DISTRICTCONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA(PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> C.C.No.217 of 26.7.2007 Decided on : 9.1.2008 <br /> <br /> 1. Kulwant Singh S/o Sh. Kartar Singh, R/o Village Buraj Mehma, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> 2. Balkaran Singh S/o Sh. Kulwant Singh;<br /> 3. Jagjit Singh S/o Sh. Kulwant Singh;<br /> 4. Jagsir Singh S/o Sh. Kulwant Singh, all R/o Village Buraj Mehma, Tehsil & District Bathinda. <br /> .... Complainants<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.The Punjab State Electricity Board through its Secretary, The Mall, Patiala.<br /> 2.The S.D.O., Punjab State Electricity Board, Goniana Sub Division, Goniana Mandi, Tehsil & District Bathinda.<br /> ..... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986<br /> <br /> QUORUM:<br /> Sh. Lakhbir Singh, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> <br /> For the complainant : Sh. N K Jeet, Advocate<br /> For the opposite parties : Sh. Jaideep Nayyar, Advocate<br /> <br /> O R D E R.<br /> <br /> LAKHBIR SINGH, PRESIDENT:- <br /> 1. Jasvir Kaur was the wife of Kulwant Singh complainant No. 1 and mother of remaining complainants. Complainants are resident of village Buraj Mehma. An electricity connection provided by opposite party No. 2 has been installed in the house of complainant No.1 and he is paying electricity consumption charges. Complainant No. 1 and his wife Jasvir Kaur were residing in the house. She was employed as Part Time Sweeper in Government Elementary School, Buraj Mehma. Complainants No. 2 to 4 are aged about 28, 26 and 22 years respectively. They are all married and are living separately from complainant No. 1. High voltage live electric wires were passing over the house of complainant No. 1 at a very low height. It is averred by the complainants that it is the duty of the opposite parties to ensure that minimum distance is maintained as per norms of the Electricity Act between the roof of the house and the wires. Opposite parties neither maintained the minimum distance nor provided plastic shield. On 26.5.2006, complainant No. 1 and some other residents of the village had made two written representations to opposite party No. 2 requesting to remove high voltage live electric wires as they were posing danger of fatal accident to the inhabitants of the houses from over which they were passing at a very low height including the house of complainant No. 1. Opposite party No. 2 did not take the matter seriously and in routine marked them for necessary action. On 16.6.2006, it was running heavily. Aforesaid Jasvir Kaur aged about 45 years had gone on the roof of the house to mend its leaking portion. As high voltage live electric wires were loose and very low, she came in contact with them and was electrocuted. Daily Dairy Report No. 14 dated 16.6.2006 was got recorded in Police Station Nehianwala regarding this fatal accident. Her dead body was subjected to post mortem examination in Civil Hospital, Bathinda. As per post mortem report, her death was due to cardiac failure which was the result of electric shock which was ante mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. It is alleged by the complainants that opposite parties are directly responsible for the fatal accident resulting into the death of Jasvir Kaur as they failed to maintain minimum distance of the wires over the house as per norms or take any preventive action after receiving representations. They were grossly negligent and deficient in rendering service. Opposite party No. 2 was approached to pay compensation for death of Jasvir Kaur. Certain documents were demanded vide memos No. 2350 dated 4.7.2006 and 2651 dated 23.8.2006 and endorsement No. 3361 dated 22.9.2006. Those documents and required information were supplied to opposite party No. 1 vide letter dated 23.9.2006. Ultimately, opposite party No. 2 refused to pay the compensation. It is further averred by the complainants that apart from getting Rs. 616/- as monthly pay from the school, she used to work as domestic helper in some houses and was also rearing milch animals. In this manner, she was earning Rs. 4,616/- per month or Rs. 55,392/- per annum. She was well built and would have continued to work upto the age of 60/65 years. She would have earned Rs.10,00,000/Rs.15,00,000/-. Accordingly, claim is for recovery of total sum of Rs. 5,55,500/-, the details of which are as under :-<br /> ( i ) Compensation due to death of Jasvir Kaur - Rs. 5,00,000/-<br /> ( ii ) Mental pain and agony - Rs. 50,000/-<br /> ( iii ) Legal expenses - Rs. 5,500/-<br /> In these circumstances, complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Here-in-after referred to as the Act) has been preferred seeking direction from this Forum to the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 5,55,500/- alongwith interest and costs.<br /> 2. Complainants No. 2 to 4 have been arrayed as complainants during the pendency of the complaint.<br /> 3. Opposite parties filed their version taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable in the present form; they have not approached this Forum with clean hands; this Forum has got no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint; complaint is false and frivolous and complainants are not consumers. On merits, they admit that complainant No. 1 has electricity connection in his house. High tension wire was in existence for the last many years. Houses beneath them have been subsequently constructed in utter violation of the PSEB rules and norms. Even in case any such accident has occurred, they are in no way liable for the same. No such liability can be fastened upon them for the fault and negligence of some other persons. There is no negligence and carelessness on their part since the electricity wires were properly maintained by them. It is for the consumers to see that their construction is at a considerable distance from the high tension wires. They admit that DDR was recorded in the Police Station regarding the death. They deny that death was due to cardiac failure. Complainant No. 1 did not provide the documents as required by them. They admit that Jasvir Kaur was getting only Rs. 616/- per month from the School. They do not admit the remaining averments in the complaint.<br /> 4. In support of their allegations and averments in the complaint, complainants tendered into evidence affidavit (Ex.C.1) of Kulwant Singh complainant, affidavits (Ex.C.2 to Ex.C.4) of S/Sh. Gurcharan Singh, Sarwan Singh and Gurjant Singh respectively, photocopies of applications (Ex.C.5 & Ex.C.6), photocopy of DDR dated 16.6.2006 (Ex.C.7), photocopy of Inquest report dated 16.6.2006 (Ex.C.8), photocopy of post mortem report (Ex.C.9), photocopies of memos dated 4.7.2006 & 23.8.2006 (Ex.C.10 & Ex.C.11), photocopy of endorsement dated 22.9.2006 (Ex.C.12), photocopy of application dated 23.9.2006 (Ex.C.13), photocopy of certificate (Ex.C.14) and photocopy of enquiry report (Ex.C.15 & Ex.C.16).<br /> 5. On behalf of the opposite parties, reliance has been placed on affidavit (Ex.R.1) of Sh. R.K. Goyal, AEE/SDO, Operation Sub Division, PSEB, Goniana.<br /> 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Apart from this, we have gone through the record.<br /> 7. One objection has been taken by the opposite parties that complainants are not consumers. This objection is not tenable. They have admitted that complainant No. 1 has electricity connection in his house. Complainants No. 2 to 4 are the sons of complainant No. 1. They are the legal heirs of the deceased. High tension wires were going over the house of complainant No.1. They were loose and hung very low. Deceased who was the wife of complainant No. 1 and mother of complainants No. 2 to 4 came in contact with them and was electrocuted. In such a situation, complainants are consumers in view of the observations in the authorities Rajasthan State Electricity Board & Ors. Vs. Mahadev Meena-IV(2005)CPJ-298 and Chairman, P.S.E.B and others Vs. Mohinder Kaur-2004(2) JRC-81. <br /> 8. Opposite parties admit that DDR regarding death of Jasvir Kaur was recorded. Version of the complainants that she went on the roof of her house to mend leaking portion of it and that since high voltage live electric wires were loose and hung very low, she came in contact with them and was electrocuted stands supported with the affidavits Ex.C.1 to Ex. C 4 of complainant No. 1, Gurcharan Singh, Sarwan Singh and Gurjant Singh respectively. After DDR was got recorded with the police, proceedings under section 174 of Criminal Procedure Code were conducted by the police. A perusal of them also reveals that she was electrocuted as she came in contact with the live electric wires passing over the roof of her house. Dead body was subjected to post mortem examination and copy of the post mortem report also supports the stance of the complainants. According to it, death was due to cardiac failure which was the result of electric shock which was ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Assistant Electrical Inspector for Chief Electrical Inspector, PSEB, Patiala conducted inquiry and submitted his report dated 31.7.2006, copy of which is Ex.C.16. He has observed that Jasvir Kaur fell prey as she came in contact with 11 KV line and had died on 16.6.2006. Hence, bald affidavit Ex.R.1 of Sh. R.K. Goyal that complaint is false and frivolous, assumes no significance. Conclusion is that death of Jasvir Kaur was due to electric shock.<br /> 9. Principal objection taken by the opposite parties is that HT wires were in existence for the last many years. Houses beneath them were subsequently constructed in utter violation of the rules and norms. In case, any such accident has happened, opposite parties are not liable as no negligence and carelessness on their part is established as the wires were properly maintained and it was for the consumers to see that their construction is at a considerable distance from the HT wires. Onus to prove it is upon the opposite parties as it is their allegation. For this, they are relying upon bald affidavit of Sh. R.K. Goyal, AEE/SDO. In our view, Ex.R.1 is not sufficient to support their version. Opposite parties have not placed and proved record to show when this 11 KV line passing over the house of the complainant and others was laid. This record was with them. Best evidence has been withheld by them. For this, adverse influence deserves to be drawn against them to the effect that this line was laid subsequent to the construction of the house of the complainant and others over whose houses it was passing. In the affidavits Ex. C1 to Ex.C.4, it has been specifically sworn by the deponents that high voltage electric wires over the house of the complainants and many other houses were laid by the Punjab State Electricity Board. These affidavits do not stand rebutted. Some persons of the village made representation to opposite party No. 2 on 26.5.2006 and copy of the same is Ex.C.5 for removing the electric wires from over their houses. Complainant No. 1 and some other residents of the village also made representation dated 26.5.2006 and copy of the same is Ex.C.6. They were marked for necessary action. If construction was raised subsequent to the laying of the 11 KV line, opposite party No. 2 could make observations to this effect on the representations made by the concerned residents of the village. Assistant Electrical inspector in his report, copy of which is Ex. C.16, has observed that Dev Singh, Sukhram, Binder Singh and Jassa Singh have raised construction under 11 KV line. There is nothing in it that complainant No. 1 raised construction subsequent to the day 11 KV line was laid. In these circumstances, crux of the matter is that house of complainant No.1 was already existing before laying of 11 KV line.<br /> 10. As discussed above, representations were made to opposite party No.<br /> 2 for removing high voltage live electric wires as they were posing danger of fatal accident to the inhabitants of some of the houses from over which they were passing at low height including the house of the complainant. Despite this, no action was taken by opposite party No. 2. Observations to this effect have also been made by Assistant Electrical Inspector in his report. Sh. Jagtar Singh, J.E has been held responsible. Assistant Electrical Inspector has expressed the view that accident could be avoided if the vertical distance of 11 KV line from the roofs of the houses could have been maintained as 2.5 metres. He also found contravention of the rules. Hence, opposite parties have no escape from liability. There was serious negligence and deficiency in service on their part which has led to the untimely demise of Jasvir Kaur. Opposite parties were demanding some documents from complainant No. 1 regarding the death claim of deceased Jasvir Kaur as is clear from Ex.C.10 and Ex.C.12. Required information and documents were submitted by complainant No. 1 as is obvious from Ex.C.13. Despite this, no compensation has been paid. On this score as well, there is deficiency in service.<br /> 11. Now question arises as to which relief should be accorded to the complainants and if so, to whom and in what manner. Contention of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that there is no dispute about the fact that deceased was getting Rs. 616/- per month as part time Sweeper as per certificate Ex.C.4. Beyond this, she had no income as it is not clear from the affidavits Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.4 in whose houses she was working as domestic helper and how much she was getting from them. Hence, her monthly income cannot be taken as Rs. 4,616/- and she could not earn upto the age of 60/65. Thoughtful consideration to these submissions have been given by us. No-doubt, affidavits Ex.C.1 to Ex.C.4 do not show in whose houses she was working as domestic helper and how much she was getting from each of them. Similarly, they do not reveal the number of milch animals which she was rearing. Despite this, one thing is clear that she was employed as part time Sweeper in the school. After<br /> this, she could perform household chores. In the present day set up, even a labourer earns Rs. 60 to Rs. 70/- per day as labour charges. No-doubt, it is difficult to conclude that her monthly income was certainly Rs. 4,616/-, yet conclusion cannot be arrived at that her earnings were only to the extent of Rs. 616/- per month, particularly when she could do household work and even work in the houses of some other persons. Keeping in view the income of the deceased, standard of living and status of her family, apt and appropriate compensation which we assess is Rs. 1,50,000/-. For this, we get support from the observations of Hon'ble State Commission of U.P. In the case of Urmila Devi (Urmila Mani) and others Vs. Chief Engineer, U.P Power Corporation Ltd. and others-2007 CTJ-81 (C.P) (SCDRC). Now question is as to who is entitled to receive it. Complainant No. 1 is not class-I legal heir of the deceased. Accordingly, complainants No. 2 to 4 are entitled to receive this amount in equal shares. Complainant No. 1 is craving for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony. He has lost his life partner who was earning hand as well. Her unnatural death came to him as a bolt from the blue which must have caused him mental pain and agony for which complainant No. 1 deserves some compensation which we assess as Rs. 10,000/-.<br /> 12. In the result, complaint is partly allowed against the opposite parties with costs of Rs. 2,000/-. Opposite parties are directed to do as under :- <br /> ( i ) Pay Rs. 1,50,000/- to complainants No. 2 to 4 as compensation which would be shared by them equally.<br /> ( ii ) Pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony and aforementioned costs of Rs. 2,000/- to complainant No. 1.<br /> ( iii ) Compliance within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which the amount of compensation i.e. Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- would carry interest @ 9% P.A till payment.<br /> 13. Copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost. File be<br /> consigned .<br /> <br /> Pronounced (Lakhbir Singh)<br /> 9.1.2008 President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr.Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> 'bsg' <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />