1. The present Revision Petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) has been filed by the Opposite Parties - C.G. State Electricity Board (Petitioners herein) against the Order dated 04.05.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 668/2016, whereby, the Appeal filed by the Complainant – Ramnihora Sahu (Respondent herein) was allowed and the Order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mungeli, C.G. (hereinafter referred to as the “District Forum”) was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the Complaint are that on 24.02.2013, the wife of the Complainant – Sumitra Bai (since deceased) went for harvesting (cutting of crop) in the field, where she came in contact of electricity wire, lying in the field having detached from the high voltage pole of the Electricity Department running over the field, which resulted into her death due to electric shock.
3. Being aggrieved and alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Electricity Department, causing untimely death of his wife, the Complainant filed the Complaint before the District Forum, which dismissed the same, holding the Complaint as not a matter of deficiency in service, but of self-negligence.
4. The relevant portion of the Order of the District Forum in CC No. 163/2014, dated 14.10.2016 is reproduced herein:

“For the reasons stated above, I conclude this finding that this is not a matter of deficiency in service of the non-applicant Electricity Board, however, it is a matter of self-negligence. Therefore, in my opinion, the applicant is not entitled to get any compensation from the non-applicant Electricity Board, consequently, his complaint is hereby dismissed.”

5. Aggrieved by the Order of the District Forum, the Complainant appealed before the State Commission.
6. The State Commission, vide its Order dated 04.05.2017, setting aside the Order of the District Forum, allowed the Appeal and directed the Opposite Parties to pay an amount of Rs. 3,36,000/- alongwith Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.
7. The relevant portion of the Order of the State Commission in First Appeal No. 668/2016, dated 04.05.2017 is reproduced herein:"17.     In perspective of the above interpretation, the appeal filed by the appellant/ complainant is hereby allowed and the impugned order of the learned District Forum dated 14.10.2016 is hereby set-aside. The non-applicants are hereby ordered that the non-applicants shall pay amount of Rs. 3,36,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Only) to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of order. If, the non-applicants fail to pay the amount of Rs. 3,36,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Only) to the complainant within a period of 45 days, then, the non-applicants shall pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on Rs. 3,36,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Only) with effect from the date of institution of complaint viz. w.e.f. 27.08.2014 till date of payment of the amount. The non-applicants are further ordered to pay amount of Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the appellant / complainant on account of litigation charges of this appeal.”

8. Against the Order of the State Commission, the Opposite Parties filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission with the following prayer:
   • a.       Set aside the judgment and order dated 04.05.2017 passed by the Learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bilaspur in First Appeal No. FA/2016/668;

b.         Direct the Respondents to pay cost of litigation, as deem fit by this Hon’ble Commission;

xxx”

9.  I have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and perused the material available on record.
10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners in their oral arguments submitted that electrocution did  take place on account of the live wire lying in the field resulting in unfortunate death of the Complainant’s wife. However, there is a specific provision under Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003, which lays down the action to be taken in such situation. The Complainant has not taken recourse to this Section and instead has filed a complaint before the District Forum. However, no complaint of wire having fallen was made by any other person. When he was asked, whether any compensation was granted by the Petitioner or the State Government, he submitted that to his best of knowledge, no compensation has been granted to the Complainant.
11. The Order of the State Commission is quite comprehensive and has dealt with the matter in detail including certain case laws relevant to the case and has found the Petitioner to be deficient in service and directed them to pay an amount of Rs. 3,36,000/-. I do not find any illegality or material irregularity in the Order of the State Commission, which is well reasoned. No new question of law or facts has been put forth by the Petitioners. I am not inclined to accept the Order of the District Forum, which has laid blame of negligence to the deceased. Notwithstanding Section 161 of the Electricity Act, 2003, the Complaint is maintainable. If a high voltage electricity wire has fallen on ground, it is undoubtedly a deficiency of service.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Revision Petition is dismissed and the Order of the State Commission upheld.