Punjab

Sangrur

CC/613/2019

Vikas Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.J.S.Kaler

21 Nov 2023

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SANGRUR .

          

                                                                         Complaint No.   613

 Instituted on  :   02.12.2019

                                                                         Decided on    :  21.11.2023     

 

1. Vikas Kumar (minor) S/o Sisan Pal R/o Village Shergarh, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala through his next Friend/natural guardian Sheeshan Pal S/o Mahinder Ram R/o Village Shergarh, Tehsil Patran, District Patiala.PIN Code -147105.         

                                                          …. Complainant.     

                                                 Versus

1. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., Head Office, The mall Patiala through its CMD(147001).
2. S.D.O., Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd, Sohian Road, Sangrur-1480001

  …..Opposite Parties

3. Suresh Kumar S/o Late Ram Chander R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Sunami Gate, Sangrur. Working in State Bank of India Residing near Anmol Karyana Store..

                                    …..Proforma Opposite party. 

QUORUM                                       

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL: PRESIDENT

SARITA GARG                          :MEMBER

 

For the complainant  : Shri J.S. Kaler Adv.             

For the OP No.1&2   : Shri Amit Goyal Adv.

          For the OP No.3            : Exparte

ORDER BY

JOT NARANJAN SINGH GILL, PRESIDENT

 

1. The brief facts of the complaint are that Suresh Kumar R/o Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Sunami Gate, Sangrur is the Consumer of Ops vide connection number S43DH580547A, who is regularly paying the bills. The complainant is the nephew of Suresh Kumar. Therefore the complainant is the Consumer of Ops. Suresh Kumar has a residential house Situated at Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Sunami Gate, Sangrur and electricity wires were crossing over his house, which were very dangerous for the person who were residing in the house.  On 16.01.2019, Suresh Kumar moved an application to Op number 2 for shifting the electricity lines(Crossing Over his house) to any suitable place and he deposited Rs. 500/- as processing fee vide receipt number 50083 dated 16.1.2019.
2. On 24.02.2019 there was a function in the house of Suresh Kumar. Therefore, his nephew Vikas i.e. the complainant alongwith his grand mother Batheri Devi came to the house of Suresh Kumar on 23.2.2019. On 24.2.2019 when the function was going on, the complainant was moving the iron ladder, which was causing inconvenience to the relatives. In this process, the iron ladder came in contact with the electricity lines, which was crossing over the house and due to such contact, the complainant got the serious burn injuries on his hands, face, neck and right foot. Therefore, he was immediately rushed to Civil Hospital, Sangrur from where he was referred to CMC, Ludhiana. Complainant was hospitalized on 24.2.2019 and was discharged on 10.3.2019. During the treatment right hand of the complainant was amputated and surgery was conducted on his other hand and on face on 28.2.2019 and 08.3.2019 respectively. Complainant has spent Rs. 2,00,000/- at CMC, Ludhiana, For further treatment the complainant approached to the hospital at Shah Satnam Ji Specialty Hospital at Sirsa, Where the doctors have treated the complainant for his eye damage and conducted the plastic surgery on his face, where the complainant spent Rs. 5,00,000/- on the treatment. The matter was reported to Police Station City, Sangrur vide DDR number 39 dated 11.7.2019. Still the medical treatment of the complainant is going on and his left hand is still not working and the treatment of the eyes and face is also going on. The complainant was studying in 12^th class and his exam were to be started in the next week from the incident. Due to this happening, now the complainant has became handicap and is unable to work for his livelihood and to perform his daily work. The complainant is now fully dependent on his relatives and family members. The future of the complainant is totally in dark and marriage proposal of the complainant has been demolished. The incident occurred with the complainant due to negligence on the part of Ops.  The Ops have not shifted the electricity lines timely and due to negligence and deficiency in service, the complainant suffered the mental agony, pain and expenses of hospitalization, travelling, and special diet. Before this incident, the complainant was helping his father in his business of construction and was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. The complainant was a sharp student and there were the chances that in future, the complainant would obtain a job with better paying scale, but due to negligence on the part of the Ops, everything has been ruined. The Suresh Kumar is the original Consumer and the application for shifting the line was given by him and the processing fee was also deposited by him. Therefore, he is being impleaded as Performa Opposite party and lastly prayed that the Ops may kindly be directed to pay compensation amount of Rs. 18,50,000/- alongwith interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of present complaint on account of grievous injuries and physical disability sustained by the complainant and Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension, pain, harassment caused to the complainant by the Ops and to pay Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses and any other relief which this Forum deems fit be also granted in favour of the complainant and  against the Ops.
3. Upon notice, Op.1 and Op.2 appeared and filed written version by taking legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action and locus standi to file the present complaint. Complainant is neither the consumer of Ops nor the matter in dispute falls within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act. On merits it is submitted that neither the complainant nor proforma Op Suresh Kumar is the Consumer of the answering Ops as the electric connection in question was installed in the name of Ram Chand and is still running in the name of Ram Chand. It is admitted to the extent that Suresh Kumar deposited Rs. 500/- as processing fee on 16.1.2019 for shifting the electric line passing in front of his house. It is further stated that  Suresh Kumar Constructed new house (Renovated the old house) in which the connection in question is installed in the name of Ram Chand. The concerned J.E. of the Ops visited the site and estimate for shifting the electric line was prepared by the Ops and Rs. 6742/- was payable by the applicant and after payment of said amount by the applicant on 27.3.2019, the line was shifted by answering Ops. Complaint itself shows that the complainant did not took proper care and caution while moving the iron ladder and he himself was careless and negligent while moving the iron ladder without giving a look towards the electric lines passing in front of the house. It is further submitted that contents of DDR no. 39 dated 11.07.2019 itself shows that it was recorded upon the statement of Sheeshan Pal Father of complainant and he admitted that the incident took place suddenly and naturally and there was no fault on the part of any one and he do not want to take any action against any one. Thus the present complaint against the answering Ops is not maintainable and complainant is not entitled for any compensation. It is specifically denied that the incident took place due to negligence on the part of answering Ops. In fact electric line of the corporation was passing through the same place for the last so many years. Remaining all the allegations are denied by the answering Ops and prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed with costs.
4. Upon notice proforma Opposite party number 3 appeared and filed reply and pleaded that there is gross negligence on the part of Op.1 and Op.2. Op number 3 had written a letter dated 16.1.2019 regarding the electric wires passing above the house of the Op.3 as the said wires were very low and he had deposited processing fee of Rs. 500/- vide receipt number 161 dated 16.1.2019. As such there is no negligence on the part of Op.3 and lastly prayed that the complaint may kindly be dismissed qua the Op.3. At the stage of evidence Opposite party no.3 was proceeded against exparte  vide order dated 16.01.2022.
5. In order to prove the complaint the complainant tendered into the evidence Ex.C-1  affidavit, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-100 documents and Ex.C-101 affidavit and closed the evidence. Similarly, Op.1 and Op.2 tendered into evidence Ex.Op.1&2/1 affidavit and Ex.Op.1&2/2 copy of estimate and closed the evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record file carefully with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
7. It is writ large on the file as per Ex.Op.1&2/1 and Ex.OP.1&2/2 that 11 KV high voltage wire was passing over the house of Proforma Op.3. As per para no.3(a) of the complaint Proforma Op.3 is paying the bills of connection number S43DH580547A. It is not disputed that Op.3 deposited the processing fee of Rs. 500/- on 16.1.2019 to Op.1 and Op.2 for shifting the High voltage electric line passing on the house of the Op.3. This factum was also admitted by Op.1 and Op.2 at para 3(b) reply on merits. During arguments the learned counsel for the complainant had argued that on 24.2.2019 there was function in the house of Suresh Kumar (Proforma Op.3) who is the uncle of the complainant and who is using the connection number S43DH580547A and is regularly paying the bills and other charge. The complainant was moving the iron ladder and the same was came into the contact with electricity line, which was crossing over the house of Suresh Kumar and due to such contact complainant suffered grievous burn injuries on his body and is fully entitled to claim the compensation from the Ops. In spite of the fact that Op.3 deposited Rs. 500/- as processing fee vide receipt no. 161 dated 16.01.2019(Ex.C-3a).Op.1 and Op.2 did not take any action to shift the electricity line. If the department of Ops shifted the electricity lines timely, the complainant would not suffer the injuries. The incidence occurred due to the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of Ops. After the incidence complainant was rushed to  Civil Hospital, Sangrur and further referred to CMC, Ludhiana. The complainant was admitted on 24.02.2019 and was discharged on 10.3.2019(Ex.C-4). During his treatment, the complainant and his family spent lakh's of Rupees. During treatment, the right hand of the complainant was amputated and surgery was conducted on his other hand and face on 28.02.2019 and 08.03.2019. Thereafter, Complainant was treated at Shah Satnamji Specialty Hospital Sirsa for his eye damage and plastic surgery on his face. The incident was also reported to P.S. City sangrur vide DDR no. 39 dated 11.7.2019(Ex.C.5). At the time of the incident the complainant was studying in 12^th class. He could not pursue his study due to the incident because the treatment of complainant took more than one year. The complainant is now unable to perform his daily work as a normal person. Complainant is now fully dependent on his family members. The future of the complainant is totally spoiled.
8. To support the contention, the complainant has produced Ex.C-2 copy of application which has been moved by proforma Op number 3 to Assistant Executive Engineer (city) PSPCL sangrur on 16.01.2019 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the meter was installed in the name of his deceased father at Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Sangrur. Further it was stated that the electric wires were touched with my house and due to that reason there is an apprehension of loss of human life. He further stated that he is bound to pay the required fee what so ever for removal of electricity wires. An amount of Rs. 500/- was deposited alongwith the application vide receipt no. 161 dated 16.01.2019 in the name of Suresh Kumar(Ex.3a). The application was moved by Op.3 on 16.01.2019 and the Processing fee was deposited on the same day i.e. 16.01.2019 which was much prior to the incidence occurred on 24.02.2019. But the estimate for shifting/Upliftment  of the electric lines was prepared by the Op.1 and Op.2 on 13.03.2019 (Ex.Op.1&2/2). From this angel we feel that Op.1 and Op.2 have committed negligency and deficiency in service.
9. We also examined  Ex.C-100 Disability certificate issued by medical authority, Patiala, Punjab dated 01.11.2019. We further observed from this document that the disability of the complainant is low vision of the right eye diagnosised as visual disability, permanent Physical impairment is  30% and the locomotor disability with regard to right upper limb diagnosised as amputation is 80%. Disablity Certificate assessed the physical impairment of the complainant 83% and this condition is Non-Progressive and Re-Assessment of disability is not recommended. Ex.C-99 is the unique identity card issued by CMO Office, Patiala has shown that the complainant  is suffered from 83% disability .  Further to support the contention complainant produced his own affidavit Ex.C-101 duly attested by notary public. Ex.C-4 is the discharge summary of the complainant where in it is mentioned that the complainant was admitted on 24.2.2019 and discharged on 10.3.2019 at CMC Ludhiana. Doctors examined the complainant. It is mentioned under the examination head "Sup/Deep Burns over Face / Neck/Chin/bilateral hands/ right foot, C.T. head  FRONTAL SDH. Surgical Operation was performed on 28.2.2019 for fascitomy Bilateral Hands and for Debridement + Face/left hand/right hand/ right foot on 08.3.2019.  During Surgical Operation Doctor's findings were Sup/Deep Burns Face- Slougn Seen, hands bilateral, Right foot necrotic tissue seen. It is transpires from the documents Ex.C-4 that the follow up treatment plastic surgery OPD would be conducted on 11.3.2019. As per Ex. C-6 complainant was further admitted for plastic surgery on 25.04.2019 and discharged on 26.05.2019 at Shah Satnam Ji Speciality Hospitals, Sirsa, Haryana. Complainant has already spent Rs. 2,83,462/- on his treatment.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Op.1 and Op.2 has argued that neither the complainant nor the Proforma Op.3 is a consumer qua the Op.1 and Op.2. Op.1 and Op.2 has pleaded in Reply on merits at para number 3(a) that the meter is still running in the name of Ram Chand. To solve this issue, this Commission has observed that as per Ex.C-7, the electricity consumption bills are regularly deposited by the Proforma Op.3 and the complainant is the close relative of Op.3.According to the section 2(15) of electricity Act,2003 Consumer means any person who is supplied with electricity  for his own use by a licensee or the government or by any other person engaged in the business of supplying electricity to the public under this act or any other law for the time being in force and includes any person whose premises are for the time being connected for the purpose of receiving electricity with the works of licensee, the Government or such other person, as the case may be.
11. In the affidavit Ex.C-101 complainant has pleaded that he was studying in 12^th class and his exam were to started in the next week of the accident. Due to this happening, the complainant suffered a permanent disability and is now handicapped and is unable to work for his livelihood and perform his daily routine work. We are of the view that accident was occurred due to the negligency/deficiency of the Opposite parties number 1 &2 since they have failed to perform their duty for shifting the electricity line timely inspite of the fact that processing fee was deposited for shifting the electricity line. If the opposite parties number 1 and 2 had moved the electricity line timely, the accident happened with the complainant could be avoided. The accident totally changed the life of the complainant. The life of a young man having bright future had been ruined and reduced to zero.
12. The learned counsel for complainant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble National Consumer Commission in Case titled as Managing Director Cum Chairman A.P. Transco and Others Vs Mohd. Noorullha Shareef and others Appeal No. 235 of 2010 decided on 7.3.2018, where brother of complainant came into contact with that live wire snaped from pole and was electrocuted. It has been held that complainants meet the criteria for being a consumer and are entitled to get compensation from the Opposite parties. The Opposite Parties would be liable to pay Rs. 12,00,000/-. Further, the learned counsel for complainant relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in complaint case number 3 of 2005 (Pb)/35 of 2007 decided on 07.5.2007 titled as Sajjan Sachdeva(minor) & others vs Punjab State Electricity Board & others Where high tension wire was passing and the Shifting was delayed. Complainant came in to contact with high tension wire and received third degree burn injury and suffered with 100% disability. No evidence on record that Opposite parties had taken proper precaution measures. Rule 29 states that it is duty of electricity board to maintain all electricity supply lines and apparatus properly, so as to prevent danger but they did not bother and violated rule with impunity. Negligence and deficiency in service was proved. Complaint was accepted with costs of Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 9,37,040/- granted as compensation. In Appeal No. 371 & 419 of 2007 in case of   Sajjan Sachdeva & others vs Punjab State Electricity Board & others.  The Hon'ble National Commission enhanced the compensation amount from Rs. 9,37,040/- to 12,00,000/- with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
13. In View of the above discussion, the Present complaint is allowed and the Opposite parties no.1 and 2 are directed to pay to the complainant Vikas Kumar (Now Major) an amount of compensation of Rs. 12,00,000/- alongwith interest @9%  per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization on account of medical treatment, physical disability, mental tension, pain, agony and harassment. The Opposite parties no.1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
14. This order be complied by Opposite Parties within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of order.
15. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory time period due to heavy pendency of cases.
16. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.

                                  Announced.      

                                        21^st November, 2023

 

 (Sarita Garg)                     (Jot Naranjan Singh Gill)

   Member                         President